Van Til seemed to have had a bad taste for Schaeffer’s apologetics. Does my reasoning seem accurate?:

Schaeffer believed that reason preceded faith. The implications behind this would put apologetics as a sort of pre-evangelism type mode. This is the common consensus in the Church today.

Van Til believed that faith precedes reason. Thus making apologetics a “type” of evangelism.

If Schaeffer believed this, what implications would we see in his “How Should We Then Live-? series?

P.S. I appreciate you allowing me and others to share things. It helps one to think through their thoughts.

Cauvin

>> Then the Bible is in conflict with his righteous nature because it testifies that God created evil.
>>
>> Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The word “evil”, as used in the bible, has a broader meaning than the most prevalent usage suggests. The word happens to lend itself well, descriptively, to contexts of morality; but the un-nuanced meaning of the word denotes chaos, destruction, etc. It is my position that it is this broader definition which is being used in Isaiah 45, such that a more colloquially sensitive interpretation would be something like “I make peace, and create chaos”; And chaos is not necessarily a moral evil.

[Aside: I thought up the term "colloquially sensitive" on my own, i did, i did; I wonder if I can coin that. ]

My support for this position can be found in Genesis 44:34:

25 And our father said, Go again, and buy us a little food.
26 And we said, We cannot go down: if our youngest brother be with us, then will we go down: for we may not see the man’s face, except our youngest brother be with us.
27 And thy servant my father said unto us, Ye know that my wife bare me two sons:
28 And the one went out from me, and I said, Surely he is torn in pieces; and I saw him not since:
29 And if ye take this also from me, and mischief befall him, ye shall bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave.
30 Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us; seeing that his life is bound up in the lad’s life;
31 It shall come to pass, when he seeth that the lad is not with us, that he will die: and thy servants shall bring down the gray hairs of thy servant our father with sorrow to the grave.
32 For thy servant became surety for the lad unto my father, saying, If I bring him not unto thee, then I shall bear the blame to my father for ever.
33 Now therefore, I pray thee, let thy servant abide instead of the lad a bondman to my lord; and let the lad go up with his brethren.
34 For how shall I go up to my father, and the lad be not with me? lest peradventure I see the evil that shall come on my father.

The evil spoken of in verse 34 is not moral evil, but a chaos of the heart which can kill. This is what happened to Eli when he found out his sons died.

>> You said;
>> Finiteness and Physicalness are a-moral qualities, so god could create beings with these two qualities and not be in conflict with his righteous nature.
>>
>> Response;
>> This is the mistaken idea that the creation is somehow a reflection of the Character, or Nature, or Attributes of God. This assumes that anything God creates must share in His Character or attributes. Otherwise there would be no problem with God creating anything. If God creates evil then He must be evil. We could just as well argue that, since God created a finite universe with a beginning and an end then He must be finite; He had a beginning and will have an end.

… etc., etc. (I write this because the above quote is developed beyond what I chose to quote, and I believe I can address the fully developed argument without segregating the particulars.)

I do not hold to the position that god’s creations must contain only those attribute which he possesses; Further, such a position does not follow, necessarily, from the position that ‘the creation of evil would violate god’s righteousness, while the creation of a-moral finite things would not’.

>> Moreover, as I show in my papers, even if we could somehow escape the testimony of Scripture that God created evil that -still- would not give a solution because now you have to push it back further into the Eternal Decree because that is the Ultimate Origin of all things including evil. Most clearly the Scriptures show that every last thing in the universe has been decreed by God and that includes evil.

This is certainly the position to which you hold, and which I do not; It is both of our hopes to convince the other regarding at least part of this particular position.

In due course.

>> So now the question is… how can a God who is completely Holy, Righteous and void of any moral evil even -conceive- of a universe that would contain evil… and then go ahead and determine that that evil will infallibly come to pass? The question is valid because that is exactly what God did.

The reason a holy god can conceive of a universe that would contain evil is because evil comes from free agency, which, in itself, is not evil, and quite good according to god (not to mention “meaningful”).

As to evil being determined, you develop that in the next snip.

>> Acts 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
>> 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
>>
>> The word -determined- is inescapable. God determined that the greatest evil in the entire universe would happen. And He not only determined it, He actively orchestrated it; notice the word “hand”. God’s “hand” was upon those wicked men who put Christ on the cross, moving them to commit such a wicked deed… just like He moved David to sin.
There can be no stronger display of Direct causation of sin than this verse!

Another “chestnut”, as Walter Martin would say.

Certainly god determined Herod, Pilate, etc., to act against Jesus; but I will be quick to ask in what capacity did god determine these acts?

Consider that in a previous passage you cited, Satan enticed David to count the able-bodied men, and that in another passage it is said that god moved David to do this. Either passage, on its own, will suggest that god acted in a particular capacity; but, using scripture to interpret scripture, we are able to gain a more precise understanding of the capacity in which god operated.

It is my position that god moved mankind to fulfill his purposes in Jesus by way of circumstance, mostly, and in very rare instances, by way of direct causation (for instance, at particular times in Pharaoh’s life). Of course, god had direct influence on the lives of Israel for some time, and certainly this was part of his plan to save mankind.

And with that, I will say that I think I have a good idea as to what is coming next, but I believe it deserves its own post.

[Aside: I don't advocate pantheism.]

You said;
Regarding the argument of Permission you mention, I would say that >god did not create a universe which contained evil.only the creation of evil would be in conflict with his righteous nature;< [my emphasis; JK]

Response;
Then the Bible is in conflict with his righteous nature because it testifies that God created evil.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

You said;
Finiteness and Physicalness are a-moral qualities, so god could create beings with these two qualities and not be in conflict with his righteous nature.

Response;
This is the mistaken idea that the creation is somehow a reflection of the Character, or Nature, or Attributes of God. This assumes that anything God creates must share in His Character or attributes. Otherwise there would be no problem with God creating anything. If God creates evil then He must be evil. We could just as well argue that, since God created a finite universe with a beginning and an end then He must be finite; He had a beginning and will have an end.

Logically this works out to;

p1 All things created by God are things that share His nature.
p2 The physical universe is created by God. therefore;
c1 The physical universe shares God’s nature.

This resolves to ‘God is a physical being’ which is absurd. This is arguing the attributes of creation back up to God and that’s Pantheism! It identifies God with the creation. But God is not identified with the creation; He Transcends it.

As I said, God is not like His creation and does -not- share in any of the attributes of His creation and vic-a vers-a! God can create a bunny rabbit but that does not mean HE is a bunny rabbit.

Moreover, as I show in my papers, even if we could somehow escape the testimony of Scripture that God created evil that -still- would not give a solution because now you have to push it back further into the Eternal Decree because that is the Ultimate Origin of all things including evil. Most clearly the Scriptures show that every last thing in the universe has been decreed by God and that includes evil. So now the question is… how can a God who is completely Holy, Righteous and void of any moral evil even -conceive- of a universe that would contain evil… and then go ahead and determine that that evil will infallibly come to pass? The question is valid because that is exactly what God did.

Acts 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

The word -determined- is inescapable. God determined that the greatest evil in the entire universe would happen. And He not only determined it, He actively orchestrated it; notice the word “hand”. God’s “hand” was upon those wicked men who put Christ on the cross, moving them to commit such a wicked deed… just like He moved David to sin.
There can be no stronger display of Direct causation of sin than this verse!

How can God do such things and not be touched in any way with evil?

The Doctrine of Creation.
He is not it… and it is not He.
Otherwise you end up in Pantheism.

James Kirby [aka James Jay]

>> Let’s say I set the first domino in motion knowing that the last domino will flip a tripper setting off a bomb that will kill people. Would you then prosecute me? What if I wanted to escape culpability by “indirect” causation… so I hire 1 person to hire another person & so on until 100 people are involved each having been hired by 1 previous and the last person hired is paid extra to set the first domino in motion. Now I am removed 100 fold from “direct” causation. I am the final cause because I set the thing up & planned that the bomb would go off, but I am removed from directly causing the dominoes to fall by 100 fold. I had no direct involvement in starting the dominoes. Someone else started it. Would you still prosecute me?

It will help to note that *my* domino analogy was meant only, as a response to your post, to show what is meant by the term “indirect causation”, and that the *idea* of indirect causation can be expressed without using the term – not to develop a domino analogy which proves my position.

The reason this is a helpful qualification is because your use of a domino analogy may seem to some to suggest that you are further developing my domino analogy, honing its precision, such that it can be said that my domino analogy actually supports the main position you hold. Since, as was said, my domino analogy was not meant to rebut your main position, per se – it would need to be developed further, for that purpose -, and since your domino analogy agrees with my domino analogy, in that you make a distinction between first and subsequent causes, your domino analogy can be said to have the potential, as far as the discussion thus far is concerned, to rebut my main position without negating my domino analogy, such that it is.

Again, I’m only saying that your use of a domino analogy *may seem to be* something it cannot.

As to the above questions …

To the first question, regarding knowing that the last domino will flip a trigger, my response is that it depends on your intent. If you know terrorists hold journalist hostage, I doubt very much that your decision to blow up the building will be seen as evil.

You address actual intent to kill later on in your post, so I will address that there.

[Aside: I think you will agree that governmental laws based on majority rule may, or may not, conform to what god would call good; and, as such, I choose to believe that your use of the term "prosecute" is qualified by this understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.]

To the second question, regarding the removal of oneself 100 fold, my response is that murder is just *one* reason to die, and that you would be worthy of death – but not because you murdered someone; so, no, I would not prosecute you for murder because you didn’t cause anyone to die – you, and every person you hired, is responsible for their own free agency.

>> What if I set the whole thing up, bomb & all, because I want people to be killed, but I don’t want to be held accountable. I know that certain people cannot resist setting the dominoes in motion so all I have to do is set the thing up & stand back & let one of these people start it in motion. The bomb goes off & people die. Would you -still- prosecute me?

My response to this is that since you set up a bomb for the purpose of killing people, using their proclivities against them to set off your bomb [I can't wait to see part 4 of *that* movie ], then both parties are responsible for their part in the destruction.

This would be a good analogy for your position, except that god didn’t set up a proverbial bomb for the purpose of killing people. Nothing god has ever created was intended to set off a bomb; Free will, though it carries with it the potential for rebellion, is inherently good – if someone rebels, that’s entirely *their* choice. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was meant to give relevance to Adam & company’s choice to worship god – there’s nothing evil about that.

Now, god certainly set up plenty of bombs for mankind as punishment, but this is neither here nor there.

>> You see then that so-called “indirect causation” is no solution. This is the same argument as Permission… that God sets up circumstances and just stands back & let’s wicked people do what comes naturally. This is supposed to explain how God can create a universe that contains evil and escape the charge of being the “Author” of it but it does not.

As to “indirect causation” not being a solution, I have made the attempt to show that this has not been established, as of yet. (This can be implied by my responses thus far, but I mention it only to show that I am interested in addressing all of your points.)

Regarding the argument of Permission you mention, I would say that god did not create a universe which contained evil. God created man with free agency, and he, of his own accord, chose to do evil.

>> The only answer is the Doctrine of Creation whereby GOD has the ability to bring a thing into existence that does not contain any qualities of His Holy Nature. And in fact it may even contain qualities that are contrary to His Holy Nature, such as Finiteness, Physicalness, and Evil. God is none of these things yet He is the one who brought them into existence.

I’m going to assume that by “Holy Nature”, you mean “Righteous Nature”, since that’s the way it seems you are using the term.

[Aside: The term "holy" just means "set apart".]

While Finiteness, Physicalness, and Evil are not a part of god’s nature, only the creation of evil would be in conflict with his righteous nature; Finiteness and Physicalness are a-moral qualities, so god could create beings with these two qualities and not be in conflict with his righteous nature.

>> The explanation is the Doctrine of Creation. Otherwise the only other choice is to make God the true Author of sin in the negative sense and that’s unbiblical.

Just acknowledging this portion of your post: I have been arguing that my position, thus far, does not have the problems you have mentioned.

>> 2Sa 24:1; 1Ch 21:1
>> David sinned. Satan moved David to sin. So did God. Which one is the “direct” cause & which is the “indirect”. Which one carries responsibility & guilt?

I think this is the most potent of your rebuttals.

This is a toughie because even when I argue that god goaded Satan, who enticed David – which I do -, it still seems that god intended that David should sin, which would pretty much seal the deal.

It is my position that this scenario is like what god did to Job: goading Satan to test him. The reason is certainly different – Job’s goodness versus David’s sin; But this scenario need not, by the necessity of the language used, be understood as god intending David to sin, in light of the Job reference.

Not only that, but we are told that god tempts no man – that men are led astray by their own evil desires.

In conclusion: Respect for you, James; You see a few sentences, but this took longer to write than you probably think.

You wrote;
An indirect cause is a cause which is an effect of a prior cause. To illustrate, please consider the following YouTube video:

Let’s say I set the first domino in motion knowing that the last domino will flip a tripper setting off a bomb that will kill people. Would you then prosecute me? What if I wanted to escape culpability by “indirect” causation… so I hire 1 person to hire another person & so on until 100 people are involved each having been hired by 1 previous and the last person hired is paid extra to set the first domino in motion. Now I am removed 100 fold from “direct” causation. I am the final cause because I set the thing up & planned that the bomb would go off, but I am removed from directly causing the dominoes to fall by 100 fold. I had no direct involvement in starting the dominoes. Someone else started it. Would you still prosecute me?

What if I set the whole thing up, bomb & all, because I want people to be killed, but I don’t want to be held accountable. I know that certain people cannot resist setting the dominoes in motion so all I have to do is set the thing up & stand back & let one of these people start it in motion. The bomb goes off & people die. Would you -still- prosecute me?

You see then that so-called “indirect causation” is no solution. This is the same argument as Permission… that God sets up circumstances and just stands back & let’s wicked people do what comes naturally. This is supposed to explain how God can create a universe that contains evil and escape the charge of being the “Author” of it but it does not.

The only answer is the Doctrine of Creation whereby GOD has the ability to bring a thing into existence that does not contain any qualities of His Holy Nature. And in fact it may even contain qualities that are contrary to His Holy Nature, such as Finiteness, Physicalness, and Evil. God is none of these things yet He is the one who brought them into existence.

You wrote;
As to the final cause bearing culpability, yet the first cause does not, this makes no sense. If you would explain to me how you think that would work, that would help me understand where you’re coming from.

The explanation is the Doctrine of Creation. Otherwise the only other choice is to make God the true Author of sin in the negative sense and that’s unbiblical.

2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.

David sinned. Satan moved David to sin. So did God. Which one is the “direct” cause & which is the “indirect”. Which one carries responsibility & guilt?

Regards;
James Kirby

>> What is -INdirect- causation please? Can you cite a passage? If you notice in the Acts passage it states that God’s -hand- was involved. That means He was actively, directly controlling the event. This is what the Doctrine of Divine Providence is all about; God actively controlling all events in history.

An indirect cause is a cause which is an effect of a prior cause. To illustrate, please consider the following YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkbcmlG8cEQ

As to a passage which shows god causing an effect which is the cause for another effect, I offer Acts 4:27-28, which I have already done; This doesn’t help the discussion, however, since we don’t interpret the passage in the same way. Your “hiphil” argument is a step in the right direction, though.

>> It’s interesting to note that, in the Old Testament there is no Hebrew word for “cause”. The reason is because there is a from of the Hebrew verb known as Hiphil which expresses causation.

I don’t know if this is true, but I do know that all languages express causation because people of all languages need to express causation. If true, this is not an issue for my argument, since this merely takes the idea away from a single word, and puts it in a verb form.

>> That means there is no distinction in Hebrew between a “direct” and an “indirect” causation. Another good reason is… there’s no such distinction period! Causation by nature is “direct” and the so-called “final cause” is still actively involved and bears culpability. Except in the case of God being the Absolute final cause of all things he bears No Moral responsibility.

Whether or not the Hebrew language has a verb form which expresses indirect causation, this is not an issue for my argument since indirect causation can be expressed with language comprised only of words which express direct causation. For example:

I caused a domino to fall over. The domino I caused to fall over caused another domino to fall over; etc., etc.

Notice that I didn’t use the word “indirect”. Yet, notice also that one of the relationships between me and the second domino mentioned is that of indirect causation.

So even if Hebrew has no word for indirect causation, it can easily be expressed in Hebrew, as in all languages.

As to the final cause bearing culpability, yet the first cause does not, this makes no sense. If you would explain to me how you think that would work, that would help me understand where you’re coming from.

Agogley: Exactly! Thank you for affirming my point.

Agilius: “certainly god caused these events to happen – but not by direct causation; Else none could be held culpable for their sins. God knows us so well, that he knew how each of these people would play their part.”

Agogley: read all the posts, Agilius. This was one of the points brought up when somebody referenced Edwards’ work. Edwards talked about secondary causation (i.e. the sun sets indirectly causing darkness or something like that). I haven’t done enough research to agree or disagree with this. My initial thoughts though are that secondary causuation is like causuation by omission. It’s still makes you responsible.

Kirby: “God is indeed the Originator of evil, just as he is the Originator of all things. In that sense Yes he is the “author” of evil. But He is not the -Responsible- Doer of Evil, for He cannot be. God is the “Author” of bunny rabbits but there is Nothing of “bunny rabbit-ness” in God. So He is the “Author” of evil but there is no evil in Him either.”

Agogley: I thought this was the point that Jay was making. I would obviously agree that God is not evil nor the doer of evil. However, I haven’t done the research yet to be able to agree or disagree with Jay on whether God is the originator of evil. It does appear though, that Jay says God creates a world filled with evil but is not the author of evil. You contradict that, but I thought he said that. In any case, Dr. Morey has a research project for us and I believe that once we are finished with that, I will have a better understanding of the issue. Until then, I thank you for the website citation.

You said;
If God is the “good creator of evil”, then doesn’t that make God the author of evil? I’m not sure Jay really answers his own questions. Interesting read though.

Answer; God is indeed the Originator of evil, just as he is the Originator of all things. In that sense Yes he is the “author” of evil. But He is not the -Responsible- Doer of Evil, for He cannot be. God is the “Author” of bunny rabbits but there is Nothing of “bunny rabbit-ness” in God. So He is the “Author” of evil but there is no evil in Him either.

Am 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done [it]?

Does this mean that God “does evil” in the sense that He commits sin? It is nothing more than an expression of the sovereignty of God in everything. When did God “do” the evil? In one sense He “did” it in eternity in His decree when He determined that that evil, whatever it be, shall most surely come to pass. This is His decree. In another sense He “did” or does it by the execution of His providential control and ordering of all things in the universe. And it is within the confines of God’s controlling providence that the -creature- is the doer of the evil, … the -creature- is the doer of the evil… not God! This is the doctrine of Providence. It does not mean that God is either a sinner or the author of sin! But it does mean that He positively controls every event in history so that His Sovereign Will prevails and all His purposes will infallibly come to pass.

Aqilius cites Acts 4:27,28 & says..
My response is: certainly god caused these events to happen – but not by direct causation; Else none could be held culpable for their sins. God knows us so well, that he knew how each of these people would play their part.

Hello Aqilius. What is -INdirect- causation please? Can you cite a passage? If you notice in the Acts passage it states that God’s -hand- was involved. That means He was actively, directly controlling the event. This is what the Doctrine of Divine Providence is all about; God actively controlling all events in history.

It’s interesting to note that, in the Old Testament there is no Hebrew word for “cause”. The reason is because there is a from of the Hebrew verb known as Hiphil which expresses causation. I’m sure Dr Bob can verify that but you can check it out yourself if you like. That means there is no distinction in Hebrew between a “direct” and an “indirect” causation. Another good reason is… there’s no such distinction period! Causation by nature is “direct” and the so-called “final cause” is still actively involved and bears culpability. Except in the case of God being the Absolute final cause of all things he bears No Moral responsibility. Ultimately He will bring good out of all the evil in the entire universe and therein He is glorified as not only a merciful, but a just and good God.

2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah.

The verb “move” is in the form Hiphil; which is active causation so here we see God actively caused David to sin.

Regards;
James Kirby

1. Did God preordain from eternity any sin to happen in the future?

I guess since I’m taking the negative position, all I have to do is say “no”.

But I’ll go ahead and anticipate that your guys’ response will be:

Acts 4:27-28:
27For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

My response is: certainly god caused these events to happen – but not by direct causation; Else none could be held culpable for their sins. God knows us so well, that he knew how each of these people would play their part.

I hope I represented your position well.

Stephen didn’t chide the High Priest, willy-nilly.

Stephen first defended himself against accusations regarding the Law, Moses, and the temple, so that everyone would know where he was coming from. *Then* he rebuked High Priest and company.

Stephen made sure that it was obvious that his hearers deserved God’s judgement.

Ridicule has its place and context.