Rabbits and Giraffes
In the first class of incoming students at Westminster Seminary, Van Til always began by stating that the class was composed of “rabbits” and “giraffes.” He was 100% right.
Rabbits:
The “rabbits” were students who had not been properly educated in their previous college or university. Thus they had great difficulty in handling biblical apologetics.
- They often ran off on “rabbit trails,” i.e. tangents that were irrelevant and a waste of time.
- They could not keep focused on the issue at hand.
- They were not able to define, document or defend their position.
- They would get too emotional when challenged.
- They were long on questions and short on answers.
- They assumed that hurling a question at someone was a refutation.
- They did not bother to wait around to see if their question was answered - because they were not interested in answers.
- They never bothered to open a Bible but “leaned on their own understanding.”
- They were great talkers but poor exegetes.
- Whenever someone brought out the Bible, they would run for the hills or change the subject.
Giraffes:
“Giraffes” were properly educated and thus ready, able, and willing to exegete Scripture to find God’s answer to questions. They could keep focused on an issue instead of jumping all over the map. They did not run off on rabbit trails. As a result, they could see all around them. They even looked with compassion at the poor rabbits running around on the ground.
Biblicalthought.com is much like Van Til’s class. It has rabbits and giraffes discussing issues. The rabbits run around like chickens with their heads cut off while the giraffes try to keep on topic.
Dear little rabbits, you know who you are. You have “Theological Attention Deficit Disorder” (TADD) and need biblical medication to calm down. If you don’t know if you are a rabbit, biblicalthought.com will help you to understand what you are in order to change your rabbit ways. We convert rabbits into giraffes on this site.
A good question was raised by a little rabbit, who then ran away without waiting to hear the answer from God’s Word. But the question is a good one and will help us to identify rabbits and giraffes. The question:
“Did God ever foreknow, foreordain, predestine, determine, predetermine, decree, etc. any sin of man in the history of the world?”
This question deals with four issues:
- 1. Did God preordain from eternity any sin to happen in the future?
- 2. Did God know with certainty that this sin would infallibly happen in the future because He ordained it to happen?
- 3. Did the one or ones doing the predetermined sin have the freedom not to do it or did their sin necessarily happen as part of the divine plan?
- 4. Were those who sinned according to divine decree held responsible for their sin?
Rabbits, we are not interested in your vain ideas, speculations, guesses, feelings, or opinions. We are not even interested in our own ideas. So why should we waste our time on your personal opinion? How then are we going to answer these questions?
“For My hand made all these things,
Thus all these things came into being,”
declares YHWH.
“But to this one I will look,
to him who is humble,
and contrite of spirit,
and who trembles at My word. (Isa. 66:2)
If you cannot and will not tremble before the Word of God, you have to question whether you are a rabbit or a goat. If you are a real Christian, then you will submit to Scripture as the final authority on how to live and what to believe. If you have made some part of yourself into a god (your reason, experience, feelings or faith), this will come out when you answer these four questions.
For example, I was corresponding with the president of a certain Bible College on these exact questions. When I exegetically demonstrated a solid biblical answer to the questions, he wrote back that I could give him a hundred verses from the Bible but it would not make any difference because he knew the answer in his heart! I wrote back that this may reveal an unregenerate heart. He never responded back.
If you are interested in discussing this question and will submit to Scripture, then you must comment on this post by copying and pasting the *statement below. Rationalists and other humanists need not apply. We want real Christians who bow before Christ and His Law/Word to discuss this issue.
Not only must you agree to submit to Scripture, but you must also agree with historical, grammatical, exegesis as the hermeneutics you will submit to in your interpretation of the Bible. No mystical interpretation will be allowed. You cannot ignore the context or the original languages.
If we have already left you behind in the dust and you don’t know what we are talking about, then you are either a rabbit or a goat. Only God knows your heart.
If you wish to join the discussion, then publicly declare your agreement as your first comment. Copy and paste the following statement, and include your screen name in the blank space.
*I, _____________, agree to submit to the
Bible as the final authority on the answer
to these questions and further agree that I
will follow the historical grammatical
hermeneutic in my interpretation of
Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts
with my personal opinion.
55 Comments, Comment or Ping
Tim
Excellent Dr. Bob!
Jan 14th, 2008
Tim
I hear nothing but crickets!
Jan 15th, 2008
Glenn
I, _____________, agree to submit to the Bible as the final authority on the answer to these questions and further agree that I will follow the historical grammatical hermeneutic in my interpretation of Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts with my personal opinion
Jan 15th, 2008
Glenn
The only reason I affirm God’s preordained moral evil, the evil choices that are made in the world is because the Bible reveals specific instances and then texts that make sweeping statements of God’s control.
For example, all the choices of Joseph’s brothers in getting rid of him and selling him into slavery are seen as sin and yet also as the outworking of God’s good purpose. In Genesis 50:20, Joseph says to his brothers when they fear his vengeance, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” Gregory Boyd and others, who do not believe that God has a purpose in the evil choices of people (especially since he does not know what those choices are going to be before they make them), try to say that God can use the choices that people make for his own purposes after they make them and he then knows what they are.
But this will not fit what the text says or what Psalm 105:17 says. The text says, “You meant evil against me.” Evil is a feminine singular noun. Then it says, “God meant it for good.” The word “it” is a feminine singular suffix that can only agree with the antecedent feminine singular noun, “evil.” And the verb “meant” is the same past tense in both cases. You meant evil against me in the past, as you were doing it. And God meant that very evil, not as evil, but as good in the past as you were doing it. And to make this perfectly clear, Psalm 105:17 says about Joseph’s coming to Egypt, “[God] sent a man before them, Joseph, who was sold as a slave.” God sent him. God did not find him there owing to evil choices, and then try to make something good come of it. Therefore this text stands as a kind of paradigm for how to understand the evil will of man within the sovereign will of God.
The death of Jesus offers another example of how God’s sovereign will ordains that a sinful act come to pass. Edwards says, “The crucifying of Christ was a great sin; and as man committed it, it was exceedingly hateful and highly provoking to God. Yet upon many great considerations it was the will of God that it should be done.” Then he refers to Acts 4:27-28, “Truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur” (see also Isaiah 53:10). In other words, all the sinful acts of Herod, Pilate, of Gentiles and Jews were predestined to occur.
Edwards ponders that someone might say that only the sufferings of Christ were planned by God, not the sins against him, to which he responds, “I answer, [the sufferings] could not come to pass but by sin. For contempt and disgrace was one thing he was to suffer. [Therefore] even the free actions of men are subject to God’s disposal.”
These specific examples (which could be multiplied by many more instances) where God purposefully governs the sinful choices of people are generalized in several passages. For example, Romans 9:16: “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” Man’s will is not the ultimately decisive agent in the world, God is. Proverbs 20:24: “Man’s steps are ordained by the LORD, How then can man understand his way?” Proverbs 19:21: “Many plans are in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the LORD will stand.” Proverbs 21:1: “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.” Jeremiah 10:23: “I know, O LORD, that a man’s way is not in himself, Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps.”
Therefore I conclude with Jonathan Edwards, “God decrees all things, even all sins.” Or, as Paul says in Ephesians 1:11, “He works all things after the counsel of His will.”
Jan 15th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
I, Stephen Macasil, agree to submit to the
Bible as the final authority on the answer
to these questions and further agree that I
will follow the historical grammatical
hermeneutic in my interpretation of
Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts
with my personal opinion.
Jan 15th, 2008
Fusion!
I, Frank, agree to submit to the
Bible as the final authority on the answer
to these questions and further agree that I
will follow the historical grammatical
hermeneutic in my interpretation of
Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts
with my personal opinion.
Jan 15th, 2008
Mr. Yoh
I, G. L Yoh, agree to submit to the
Bible as the final authority on the answer
to these questions and further agree that I
will follow the historical grammatical
hermeneutic in my interpretation of
Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts
with my personal opinion.
Jan 15th, 2008
Speedy
I, Espiridion “Speedy” Camez, agree to submit to the
Bible as the final authority on the answer
to these questions and further agree that I
will follow the historical grammatical
hermeneutic in my interpretation of
Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts
with my personal opinion
Jan 15th, 2008
Speedy
I was never a rabbitt. Ever since the LORD came to the gutter and got me,I always hungered for the pure milk of the Word. But its a desert out there. I have been to many “churches” where the emphasis is not on Gods Word, but on the latest fad or recent traditional teaching of pastors who have fit the “rabbitt” category explained in the text in question.When I first heard the teaching of the Word, as Dr. Bob relies on scholarship, church history,exegesis,hermenuetics and a Gift of teaching from the LORD……………. I was floored. Explaining this to some of my brothers in Christ from other churches, as well as family members who go to other denominational churches, I was shocked. I was expecting them to ask” where can we go to get fed”!!!
I was instead ask the questions a rabbitt would ask. None the less, it seems that to speak boldly for Christ today, even in some christian circles, can get you in a debate where you are asked a million questions at once and are NOT allowed to answer.
I THANK MY GOD that He led me to a Church where His Word is taught unashamedly and boldly.
Thanks Dr Bob and Faith Community Church!!!
Jan 15th, 2008
jason is prop
I, __Jason, agree to submit to the Bible as the final authority on the answer to these questions and further agree that I will follow the historical grammatical hermeneutic in my interpretation of Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts with my personal opinion
ummm..DUH!
Jan 15th, 2008
jason is prop
AS a Matter of fact… I GLADLY submit to the Bible as the final authority on the answer to these questions and further agree that I will follow the historical grammatical hermeneutic in my interpretation of Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts with my personal opinion
Jan 15th, 2008
Mario
*I, Mario Herrera, agree to submit to the
Bible as the final authority on the answer
to these questions and further agree that I
will follow the historical grammatical
hermeneutic in my interpretation of
Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts
with my personal opinion.
Jan 15th, 2008
Mario
Looking forward to this discussion!
Jan 15th, 2008
darrin
I, Darrin, agree to submit to the
Bible as the final authority on the answer
to these questions and further agree that I
will follow the historical grammatical
hermeneutic in my interpretation of
Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts
with my personal opinion.
Jan 15th, 2008
agogley
I, agogley, agree to submit to the
Bible as the final authority on the answer
to these questions and further agree that I
will follow the historical grammatical
hermeneutic in my interpretation of
Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts
with my personal opinion.
I’ll add that I repent of my “rabbit” ways of the past and thank God for this ministry that is training me to be a “giraffe.” I also thank God for loving brothers in Christ who love me enough to rebuke and discipline me when I revert to my opinion.
Jan 15th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
A CAMELOPARD CALF’S EXEGESIS OF 2 TIMOTHY 1:3-9
Please bear with me as I walk you through 2 Tim. 1, skipping over the prologue, and ultimately landing on verse 9. The context of this passage extends far beyond verse 9, but for the sake of Dr. Morey’s post, I shall make one brief observation and conclusion. May it be understood from the onset that what I am about to do will merely make visible a faint hairline scratch on the surface of the treasures of the wisdom that is found in Jesus Christ: the Word of God.
The Apostle Paul thanks God, whom he serves, as his ancestors did, with a clear conscience, as he remembers Timothy in his prayers night and day. Paul remembers Timothy’s “sincere faith” (anupokritos pistis) which literally means “unhypocritical or unfeigned” faith (n). Paul parallels the reference to his own ancestors to Timothy’s immediate ancestors, his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice. Paul then reaffirms Timothy’s anupokritos pistis by saying, “and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.” (v.5d).
The purpose of this brief introduction is to establish the context, and more narrowly, the reason Paul begins verse 6 with “For this reason.”
2 Tim. 1:6 For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
What follows will serve as an example of the Apostle Paul “kindling afresh” Timothy’s faith. Paul ministers to Timothy by saying “For God has not given us a spirit of timidity [or cowardice – Gk: deilia], but of power [Gk: dunamis] and love [Gk: agape] and discipline.”
In Romans 1:16a we read the Apostle Paul saying “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power [Gk: dunamis] of God for salvation…” Here in 2 Timothy, we hear echoes from Romans 1 when Paul tells Timothy “Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God.”
All of this is necessary in understanding the thrust of Paul’s following declaration.
9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, 10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 11 for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, 12 which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. 13 Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 14 By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you. (ESV)
Notice that v.9 is not a new unit of thought, rather, a continuation of “suffering for the gospel according to the power of God.” Paul fully credits God with saving us and calling us to a holy [Gk: hagios] calling. The idea that Paul “fully” credits God for saving and calling comes from the following: “not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace…” It is unambiguously clear that Paul, as is found interwoven throughout all of his writings, is directly appealing to the truth about God as the absolute sovereign Creator and sustainer, giver of all things, in propositional form in order that knowledge may be given, knowledge that will fan aflame [kindle afresh – v.6] the true believer’s faith!
If this is correct, we would expect to find “solid food” in the discourse that follows. Here, we see:
• God, who saved us (v.9a)
• and called us (v.9a)
• to a holy calling (v.9a)
• not because of our works (v.9b)
• *but* because of his own purpose (v.9b)
• and grace (v.9c)
From this passage, we can be assured with all confidence that God has a purpose that the Apostle Paul refers to as “[God’s] own [Gk: idios – distinct] purpose. The Apostle says that our being saved and called was in accordance with this “his own purpose,” denoting a strong predestinarianism in Paul’s view. However, the Apostle does not place our salvation and calling under the umbrella of “his own purpose” alone, rather, Paul adds dimension to God’s own purpose lest Timothy understand God’s own purpose as being separate from his grace.
Grace [Gk: charis], unmerited favor toward sinners, or more simply put: receiving something that is completely unearned or undeserved. In v.9 Paul mentions grace to accompany God’s own purpose. Up until this point, most Christians would agree with the way I have treated the above text. However, strong disagreement comes with how the end of verse 9 is interpreted. Unless grace is defined otherwise, the Apostle Paul, in the context as described above, is telling Timothy that unmerited favor toward sinners was granted in the Messiah Jesus, from “times eternal.” [Gk: chronos aionios]
• NIV: before the beginning of time.
• NASB95: from all eternity.
• GNV: before the world was.
• R95: antes de los tiempos de los siglos
• ESV: before the ages began.
Such a significant statement like this cannot be simply overlooked. Paul is saying:
• God has his own purpose.
• The elect were saved by grace as part of this purpose.
• The saving and calling was granted from times eternal.
• Jesus, God incarnate, was destined to be the Messiah, the Savior, from all eternity.
When dealing with questions that ask how much God knew about man’s sin, or whether or not predestination was based on God’s ability to see future acts of man etc, we must be careful not to rush by certain texts like 2 Tim. 1:9, that clearly reveal to us that prior to creation, sin was in view, the crucified Messiah was in view, and God’s saving grace was in view. If you struggle with this, then answer these questions, “If we hadn’t even been born or created yet, how could we have sinned? Why would we need grace? Why would God have to take on the likeness of sinful flesh? Why would the Messiah have to have been crucified? Why would the Apostle Paul include all of this in what he called God’s own purpose?
Conclusion: Creation, Fall, and Redemption were decreed by God according to his own eternal purpose as a stage on which he can display his awesome and incomparable glory and grace! Praise the Lord!
Jan 15th, 2008
Reformed Girl
*I,Reformed Girl, agree to submit to the
Bible as the final authority on the answer
to these questions and further agree that I
will follow the historical grammatical
hermeneutic in my interpretation of
Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts
with my personal opinion.
Jan 15th, 2008
Will
Ditto. Unreservadly.
Jan 15th, 2008
Will
Thank you Glenn and Stephen, for your very excellent and edifying expositions.
Jan 15th, 2008
OverCommiTAD
We, OverCommiTAD & Reformed Mama, agree to submit to the
Bible as the final authority on the answer
to these questions and further agree that we
will follow the historical grammatical
hermeneutic in our interpretations of
Scripture. We also agree that we will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts
with our personal opinions.
Jan 15th, 2008
Derek Manning
I, Derek, agree to submit to the
Bible as the final authority on the answer
to these questions and further agree that I
will follow the historical grammatical
hermeneutic in my interpretation of
Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts
with my personal opinion.
Of course being one of the first attendees of Dr. Bob’s class back in the late 90’s I learned to affirm this from the outset of sitting under his teaching.
Jan 15th, 2008
Dr. Morey
To One and All,
Thank you for replying.
1. Are there any Arminians willing to discuss the issue with an open heart and Bible?
2. We need some people who believe in free will, the Open View of God, Middle Knowledge, etc. to join the discussion. Where are the Morelandites and Craigites when you need them? Where are the Biola grads? Where is Abanes, Koukle, Hazen, Hawkins, etc.? Where are the Catholics and Orthodox guys? Are they all hot air? It is time to put up or shut up!
3. Go out and challenge the free will advocates to stand and deliver. Do you know a pastor or free will apologist who is willing to defend his faith in the sovereignty of man? Ask him to join the discussion as long as he agrees to the requirements.
Question: What if no “free will” advocates are willing to submit to the authority of Scripture and the historical grammatical hermeneutic? What does this demonstrate about their theology?
Jan 16th, 2008
Justin
Hi all, not sure what I am on this issue. Still studying and working through a lot of this stuff. Maybe you’d call me a “rabbit,” I don’t know.
Just an idea, but you’re probably not getting much response to your challenge from the “free-will” people because it looks and smells like a trap. (Do they have to submit to scripture, or to your particular reading/interpretation of that scripture?)
One of the things I have not understood about Calvinism is this: God pre-ordains everything. (Creation, Fall, Redemption). Yet, I have read where Calvinists affirm that God is not the author of evil. So, it seems like Calvinists try to have their cake and eat it, too. God created all and pre-ordains all, just not the evil stuff (like Adam sinning, etc.)
Again, I’m still trying to understand. Maybe that makes me a rabbit.
Jan 16th, 2008
Mario
I’ll answer using the following texts in Acts: 2:22-23
“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know– this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.”
Acts 4:27-28
“For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.”
To be continued…
Jan 16th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Mario…you forgot the “p” in the first Scripture…makes a little bit of a difference…LOVE YA!!!
Jan 16th, 2008
Dr. Morey
Dear Justin,
First, you are absolutely right that humanistic theologians see a “trap” if they must submit to Scripture alone. The trap is not my personal subjective interpretation of Scripture. Everyone loves to relativize that.
The “trap” is that you have to submit to objective rules of the grammar and syntax of the original text.
Justin, a noun is a noun objectively. It is not a matter of personal feelings that a word is a noun or a verb. If a verb is in the aorist tense, that is objective reality.
Humanists are relativists who think that the Bible can be interpreted anyway you want because there is really no right or wrong interpretation. Calvinists are into objective literary rules that apply to the text regardless of what you believe.
Second, you are a rabbit. You move the focus from what the Bible say about God’s relationship to evil to the philosophical question: Is God the author of evil?
This question escapes having to go the Bible and throws us into the world of vain philosophic speculation.
Humanists cannot explain the terms of the question. They cannot define the words “God” and “evil.” What is evil according to some philosophers? The absence of good! Plato and his crowd invented this answer. But it’s nonsense.
A Calvinist asks, “Does the Bible use the word “evil?” What are the Hebrew and Greek words for evil? What do these words in Scripture? Are there verses which relate God to evil in some way? Does the Bible ever say that God created evil, or ordained evil, or sent evil, or brought evil upon someone? If “evil” is pain and suffering, is hell the greatest evil? Who created hell? Who is the author of hell?
What are the specific texts that need to be exegeted?
Justin, you can now see that when you changed the focus from the Bible to philosophy, you went down into the hole of humanism. There is no light there. Just the blackness of philosophy.
Instead of the canard of “Is God the author of evil?” it is better to ask what the Bible say about evil, God, and you?
Jan 16th, 2008
Glenn Leatherman
Justin
Thanks for you questions. One the important things is developing a Biblical theology is the development of appropriate categories of thought and for us to suspend judgment until we can deal with the Scriptures of God on this issue. Since our authority is God’s word, we must affirm that what ever God thinks, says, does, commands, or promises reveals the truth about God rather than our own understanding of fairness or our own definitions of these issues. We must let God define who he is and what is good and evil; rather than ourselves. This is why it is so important to define our questions specifically.
First your question: “Do Calvinists try to have their cake and eat it, too in saying that God created all and pre-ordains all, just not the evil stuff (like Adam sinning, etc.)?” is not a good replication of what any Calvinist I know actually would say. It tried to combine categories of ordination and authorizing (primary cause). So a Calvinist would first answer you in by saying that the question doesn’t make sense, because it is not his position as I have tried to restate it above. I would want to define what is meant by the proposition “God ordains that evil be” differently than what is meant by another proposition “God is the author if sin.” The first is true and the second if false. It also does not take into account how God can be the secondary cause and not the primary cause of something coming to pass. So I will answer your question below by dealing with it in 2 parts.
Secondly, it is true that hold to a Calvinist theology (thought we do not follow or place Calvin or any man above or over Scripture) do affirm God ordains all things that come to pass. The 1689 Baptist Confession says it so well with the right limitations on the definitions as follows:
FROM all eternity God decreed all that should happen in time, and this He did freely and unalterably, consulting only His own wise and holy will. Yet in so doing He does not become in any sense the author of sin, nor does He share responsibility for sin with sinners. Neither, by reason of His decree, is the will of any creature whom He has made violated; nor is the free working of second causes put aside; rather is it established. In all these matters the divine wisdom appears, as also does God’s power and faithfulness in effecting that which He has purposed. Num. 23:19; Isa. 46:10; John 19:11; Acts 4:27,28; Rom. 9:15,18; Eph. 1:3-5,11; Heb. 6:17; Jas. 1:13; 1 John 1:5. (1689 Baptist confession of faith, Chapter 3, Article 1)
Thirdly, Men have dealt with these issues in the past and that is why it is good to see how others have struggled with Scripture. In order to do that I want to restate your question in 2 parts. I want to look at these 2 questions as a Christian Evangelical who is seeking the glory of God, and who longs for a Biblical, God-entranced world-view. Here they are: 1) Is God the author of sin? 2) Why does God ordain that evil exist?
Is God the Author of Sin?
“If by ‘the author of sin,’ be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing . . . . it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin.” But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God’s permission, but not by his “positive agency.”
God is, “the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow.”
Jonathan Edwards uses the analogy of the way the sun brings about light and warmth by its essential nature, but brings about dark and cold by dropping below the horizon. “If the sun were the proper cause of cold and darkness,” he says, “it would be the fountain of these things, as it is the fountain of light and heat: and then something might be argued from the nature of cold and darkness, to a likeness of nature in the sun.” In other words, “sin is not the fruit of any positive agency or influence of the most High, but on the contrary, arises from the withholding of his action and energy, and under certain circumstances, necessarily follows on the want of his influence.”
Thus in one sense God wills that what he hates come to pass, as well as what he loves. Edward’s says:
“God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet . . . it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all consequences. . . . God doesn’t will sin as sin or for the sake of anything evil; though it be his pleasure so to order things, that he permitting, sin will come to pass; for the sake of the great good that by his disposal shall be the consequence. His willing to order things so that evil should come to pass, for the sake of the contrary good, is no argument that he doesn’t hate evil, as evil: and if so, then it is no reason why he may not reasonably forbid evil as evil, and punish it as such.”
This is a fundamental truth that helps explain some perplexing things in the Bible, namely, that God often expresses his will to be one way, and then acts to bring about another state of affairs. God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – “He turned their hearts to hate his people.”). He hardens Pharaoh’s heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1). He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10). He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father’s wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11). He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16). He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28). He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).
What this means is that we must learn that God wills things in two different senses. The Bible demands this by the way it speaks of God’s will in different ways. Edwards uses the terms “will of decree” and “will of command.” Edwards explains:
“[God's] will of decree [or sovereign will] is not his will in the same sense as his will of command [or moral will] is. Therefore it is not difficult at all to suppose that the one may be otherwise than the other: his will in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended that virtue or the creature’s happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature. His will of decree is his inclination to a thing not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with reference to the universality of things. So God, though he hates a things as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things. “
Justin, this brings us to the other question
Why Does God Ordain that there Be Evil?
It is evident from what has been said that it is not because he delights in evil as evil. Rather he “wills that evil come to pass . . . that good may come of it.” What good? And how does the existence of evil serve this good end? Here is Edwards’ stunning answer:
“It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . . .
Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.
If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired. . . .
So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect. “
So the answer to your question, “Do Calvinists try to have their cake and eat it, too in saying that God created all and pre-ordains all, just not the evil stuff (like Adam sinning, etc.)?” is no, just the opposite. In fact your question needs to differentiate and understand the difference in God ordaining that evil be (which is true) and God authoring sin (which is not true). God is more glorious for having conceived and created and governed a world like this with all its evil. The effort to absolve him by denying his foreknowledge of sin (as we saw this afternoon) or by denying his control of sin (which we have seen this evening) is fatal, and a great dishonor to his word and his wisdom. Evangelicals who are seeking the glory of God, look well to the teaching of your churches and your schools. But most of all, look well to your souls.
If you would see God’s glory and savor his glory and magnify his glory in this world, do not remain wavering before the sovereignty of God in the face of great evil. Take his book in your hand, plead for his Spirit of illumination and humility and trust, and settle this matter, that you might be unshakable in the day of your own calamity. Justin, my prayer is that what I have said will sharpen and deepen your God-entranced world view, and that in the day of your loss you will be like Job who, when he lost all his children, fell down and worshipped, and said, “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD.”
Jan 16th, 2008
agogley
Dr. Morey:
It would be nice to have actual “free will” believers to give us their positions first hand, but as you may have noticed on some other threads, those people tend to be better at throwing insults than arguing their thesis. Richard Abanes did appear on one topic, but Stephen Macasil dispatched him with such ease that his presence was merely entertaining rather than helpful.
Perhaps we could discuss some of the common questions/concerns/objections we find in our everyday discussions with Arminians and then go through the Biblical answers?
Jan 16th, 2008
Justin
Dr. Morey and Glenn,
First, thanks for the responses.
Dr. Morey, I definitely do not believe that anyone can interpret the Bible any way one wants. I do believe there is a right and a wrong way to interpret the Bible, and that plenty of people interpret it incorrectly. I have no problems with historical grammatical interpretation of the scripture. I must admit, however, that I am not skilled in the original languages. I hope an English version will do.(Otherwise, a whole lot of Christians without seminary education including extensive instruction on the original languages are in big -time trouble.)
Glenn, I will have to re-read your post a few times to process all of the information. For now, here is the part that puzzles me:
“FROM all eternity God decreed all that should happen in time, and this He did freely and unalterably, consulting only His own wise and holy will. Yet in so doing He does not become in any sense the author of sin, nor does He share responsibility for sin with sinners. Neither, by reason of His decree, is the will of any creature whom He has made violated…”
How can God decree ALL that happens and yet “not harm the will of any creature whom He made?”
What I guess I am asking is this: What is the difference between “decree” and “author” and “ordain”? And, isn’t the effectual call of the few (elect) “harming the will” of a creature He created? (Obviously, I do not mean doing harm as in being a bad thing for the elect, I mean that it is directly causing a change of will for a person.)
Lastly, while apparently I am a lowly “rabbit”, I would like to make it clear that my intent is not at all to throw out these questions as refutations, or ask rhetorical questions, or in any way hijack the thread to get off-track. The questions I have posed are all genuine questions I have (and have had for some time) regarding these issues.
Jan 16th, 2008
agogley
Glenn,
Wow! I’m still absorbing your post. Talk about meat! I feel like I just finished Thanksgiving dinner and will need until Christmas to digest it!Thank you for taking the time for your post.
I did have some questions that popped into my mind I read this. Some of these questions are questions that I have had to deal with when talking to others, some are questions I struggle with myself. While I am doing my own research on these questions, I thought I’d post them for discussion in the meantime. Also, I don’t like to be a nimnu so I find that asking other mature Christians is good for keeping me on the right path.
1.) What the heck do people mean by free will? What is a will? People tell me that man has a free will, but I struggle with this concept. For example, I’m a parent and I know that my daughter can choose to eat her vegetables or not, but ultimately her choice is overridden by my “will” which is that she eat her vegetables. No matter what she chooses, ultimately she is going to eat vegetables. If I as a parent exert control and dictate what events will happen, how is it not so with God also? Maybe it’s just me, but the concept of “free will” is a mystery to me. I find free will to be especially hard to understand in light of passages such as Romans 9. And yet, I run into people that attempt to convince me of free will. Perhaps you could shed some light and define what these terms mean.
2.) Decree - What does it mean? “From all eternity God decreed all that should happen in time.” Ok, but what does decreed mean?
3.) What is meant by ordained? “He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam”.
4.) “It also does not take into account how God can be the secondary cause and not the primary cause of something coming to pass.” What is meant here by “secondary causes?”
5.) You quote Jonathon Edwards. Can you provide the citations so we may also purchase and read his writings on this subject?
As I said before, I’ll be doing some of my own research into my own questions. Some of the questions I think I could answer now, but I think it’s helpful to study and perform exegetical analysis. Of course, I have other projects I have to complete which I’m struggling to keep up with(I have Bible studies on Fridays with the Church and men meet once a month and I’ve been tasked to lead for February). Additionally, I’m simultaneously trying to digest reformation history and some of Francis Schaeffer’s works at the same time.
Sooooo….in the meantime, perhaps you and some others can help out?
One more comment for Dr. Morey. In one of your lectures, you related God’s soveriegnty and Man’s choice to ropes. You said something like to man it looks like two ropes but to God it’s only one…or something like that. I’ll try to find that particular lecture, but I easily have 50 CDs to go through between two years of Crusaders Club CDs and your faithdefenders products.
Jan 16th, 2008
Joey Frascella
I glady submit to the will of Yeweh. Sure beats my depraved carnal and hell bent desires of my heart. Even though I do what I don’t want to do. Praise be to the Lord; the life I live in the flesh I live by Faith in the Son of God who died for me and gave his life up for me. Words of beauty..
Jan 16th, 2008
agogley
Justin just beat me to my post! I kinda “foresaw” his questions since I’ve heard them a number of times.
Justin: We are all “lowly.” As I read the narratives of Matt-John, I often picture myself being one of the disciples asking a stupid question or doing something completely foolish. I can tell you that I thank God for Dr. Morey who has helped me to turn from being a complete full-time nimnu to only a part-time nimnu. With God’s grace, Dr. Morey will live long enough to help me eliminate all my nimnu tendencies. Of course, he’d probably have to surpass Methuselah’s age to accomplish such a task…
In any case, I for one, am happy to have you here so long as we both agree to submit ourselves to the Biblical answer even if we do not yet understand it.
Jan 16th, 2008
agogley
BTW all:
Dr. Morey asked the following questions:
“Does the Bible use the word “evil?” What are the Hebrew and Greek words for evil? What do these words in Scripture? Are there verses which relate God to evil in some way? Does the Bible ever say that God created evil, or ordained evil, or sent evil, or brought evil upon someone? If “evil” is pain and suffering, is hell the greatest evil? Who created hell? Who is the author of hell?
What are the specific texts that need to be exegeted?”
These are great questions for research! We should work on these? Maybe Dr. Morey has this in one of his books already so we don’t have to recreate the wheel entirely?
Jan 16th, 2008
Frank B. F.
I, Frank B. F., agree to submit to the Bible as the final authority on the answer
to these questions and further agree that I will follow the historical grammatical
hermeneutic in my interpretation of Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts with my personal opinion.
Jan 17th, 2008
Fank B F
Yes the Bible does use the word “evil”. The Hebrew word is: Ra’ Greek would be:Kakos or poneros; meaning calamity,wicked,given mischief.
Yes Isaiah 45:7 Amos 3:6 yes God did but the evil God brought, was the evil of judgement.Pain and suffering result from our disobedience to God any evil thereafter is self induced. Our loving God has warned us of the wages of sin Romans 6:23 GOD created hell John 1:3 he made it for satan and the ungodly Rev 20:11-15.God takes no pleasure in our suffering but he is just! and Jesus warns us over and over in his word beause he knows that eternal seperation from God is the worst suffering.
Jan 17th, 2008
Linette
I, Linette, agree to submit to the
Bible as the final authority on the answer
to these questions and further agree that I
will follow the historical grammatical
hermeneutic in my interpretation of
Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts
with my personal opinion.
Jan 18th, 2008
tried it
I second Justin, Dr. Morey. Looks and smells like a trap indeed.
Is the following a genuine attempt at enticing dissenting opinions? “…are they all hot air? It is time to put up or shut up!…What if no ‘free will’ advocates are willing to submit to the authority of Scripture…What does this demonstrate about their theology?”
Won’t be back…but am really disturbed by the rabblerousing, self-glorifying spirit evidenced here. I suspect none of the free willies have showed up because they have far too much experience playing games rigged against them. If they want a fair fight, they’ll go to someone like Frame.
Jan 20th, 2008
agogley
LOL. rabblerousing? self-glorifying spirit? Do people actually read the other posts before they comment?
Jan 21st, 2008
Dr. Morey
Dear “Tried it”
I realize you probably “tried” biblical Christianity once and then walked away. That is indeed a huge problem for you. No real “Christian” would think of the Bible as a “trap.”
The bravado you complained about is the literary device known as “sarcasm.” It is a method used by the prophets (ex. Elijah), Apostles (ex. Paul), and even Jesus. It was used by the Reformers to great effect.
Alas, Christianity has been feminized to such an extent today that it is not understood and is condemned as not “sensitive.”
Evanjellyfish float along in our feminized society without a backbone.
Being a talk show host for many, many years, I am use to the rough and tumble world of radio. In other words, I call crap, “crap.”
If you believe in that dung hill idol called “free will,” why wouldn’t you defend your faith in it? After probably more years doing theology than you have been alive, I have had to conclude that Free Willers are usually cowards in nature because they have a deep sense of insecurity when it comes to defending their beliefs. Most Arminians are afraid of the Bible because it confuses them and it does not teach what they believe. Such biblical words as “predestination” make them feel uncomfortable.
What happens when you find a rare brave Arminian? They make fine Calvinists! I was once an Arminian who tried to defend Arminianism. But, in order to refute the Calvinists, I had to read their books. I ended up being converted to the very position that I set out to destroy!
Arminians are much like Jehovah’s witnesses. Once you open the Bible, they head for the hills. It has been years since a single Free Willer has been willing to discuss the issue with an open Bible and an open mind. I prefer calm discussions over careful exegesis that pays attention to grammar and syntax.
It is very frustrating for Calvinists that Arminians run away from debate. I have tried to arrange public debates with Arminian theologians such as Geisler, Moreland, etc.. They usually laugh and say that they have watched me debate Muslims and that I would eat them alive.
But when my new book refuting Natural Theology and Natural Law comes out that names names and calls a spade a spade, people will wave it in their faces.
Even then I doubt they will be willing to do an honest and respectful debate on the issues. Instead, I will be attacked with typical ad hominem nonsense.
But my book will begin to have a wider and wider effect as more and more people join the Reformation. I use to feel virtually alone. Today there is a growing army of strong young brave Calvinists who will not be intimidated. When the Arminians tell them, “Shut up,” this new breed shouts louder. When accused of being radical, they say, “Thank you!” and wear that badge with honor. They will not bow down and kiss butts. They will not compromise or sell out to the world, the flesh or the devil. They are solders in the army of King Jesus and will kick ass Like Jesus.
This blog is for the few, the strong, and the brave. If you believe in free will and other humanistic dogmas, then you should be brave enough to define, document, and defend what you believe.
Jan 22nd, 2008
Craig
Dr. Morey,
Your lack of honest humility confounds me. You speak with such an air of authority, that I dare say, is quite self-aggrandizing, e.g. you say such things as, “I would eat them alive” and “After probably more years doing theology than you have been alive.” You sound not as a battled tested veteran who has for years learned the way of Jesus, but more like deserter. Those who seek the truth do so humbly. But you my friend are no seeker of truth. You are a manipulating, control freak (a.k.a type-A personality). Your modus operandi is not becoming of the kingdom of God. And just to let you know, this has nothing to do with my willingness to allow emotions to cloud my thinking or my unwillingness to submit to truth or the Bible. This I think is an honest assessment of the tone of your writing. I pray that you’re willing take my comments into consideration.
Jan 22nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Craig,
Can you please define *honest humility* for us?
Can you please define *deserter* for us?
Can you please give us an example of *seeking the truth humbly?*
Can you please provide us with an example of a *modus operandi* that *is* becoming of the kingdom of God?
Can you please expound on your willingness to allow emotions to cloud your thinking?
But please do so in a loving and humble tone so that it doesn’t turn me off.
Thank you.
Jan 22nd, 2008
Agilius
I would love to join this discussion. The reason I didn’t post earlier is because I thought the post was dedicated to this guy:
“A good question was raised by a little rabbit, who then ran away without waiting to hear the answer from God’s Word.”
I didn’t figure anyone else was supposed to respond!
I can agree with the following, as long as it is qualified by one of Dr. Morey’s quotes, which will follow:
I, Agilius, agree to submit to the Bible as the final authority on the answer to these questions and further agree that I will follow the historical grammatical hermeneutic in my interpretation of Scripture. I also agree that I will submit to the biblical answer even if it conflicts with my personal opinion.
I would like it to be understood that the above is qualified by this Dr. Morey quote:
“The “trap” is that you have to submit to objective rules of the grammar and syntax of the original text. Justin, a noun is a noun objectively. It is not a matter of personal feelings that a word is a noun or a verb. If a verb is in the aorist tense, that is objective reality.”
The reason this is an important qualification for me is because, since the Bible does not teach grammer, but rather assumes the reader already knows it, the Bible will not be the final authority regarding interpretation. This, of course, bears on my adherance to what has been called “the historical grammatical hermaneutic”.
This shouldn’t be a big deal to accept such a qualification. But take it from me, that such qualifications are necessary: I once argued to a JW couple that the name “Jehovah” wasn’t such a big deal - that “Yahweh” was closer, anyhow, but *still* most likely was not the name of god - only to have them say “If you have such a good explanation, how come it took you so long?”
I laugh about this now, but at the time, I was speechless!
With some people, with some arguments, starting as close to first principles as possible is an absolute must. And I think, and I hope, that Dr. Morey can appreciate this.
Jan 22nd, 2008
James Kirby
*I, Jim Kirby, agree to submit to the
Bible as the final authority on the answer
to these questions and further agree that I
will follow the historical grammatical
hermeneutic in my interpretation of
Scripture. I also agree that I will submit
to the biblical answer even if it conflicts
with my personal opinion.
Hello to all and a Special Hello to Dr Bob Morey from James Kirby…. [Jim]. Remember Geneva House!
Concerning the Doctrine of Theodicy, or as they say, the so-called ‘problem of evil’ have a look at this site…
http://home.paonline.com/jamesjay/Theodicy.htm
The idea of -Permission- is no answer either because Permission does not exonerate one from involvement and culpability. If I ‘Permit’ my pit bull to attack you would you press charges? Why?
There’s a section on Permission on the site. As well the J. Edwards illustration of the sun “causing” cold does not address the issue. That’s found in the paper on Permission.
In His Truth Alone;
James Kirby
Jan 23rd, 2008
agogley
I read parts of the theodicy website. James Jay says this in his doctrine of creation:
“Thus God brought a universe that begins, changes and ends into existence but there is no beginning, change or end in God. And… God brought a universe containing evil into existence… but THERE IS NO EVIL IN GOD! He is the good creator of evil! Thus He is able to bring evil into existence and Himself not be evil! This then, is the grand doctrine of creation and is the platform upon which the Christian answer to the problem of evil is built.”
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.
Jan 23rd, 2008
agogley
Craig:
“Those who seek the truth do so humbly”
Really? I guess Stephen (as in Acts) was waaaay off base then when he was speaking truth, huh?
Jan 23rd, 2008
Agilius
Agogley,
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.
Jan 23rd, 2008
Agilius
I’ll address the first question … first. o.O
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.
Jan 23rd, 2008
James Kirby
Hello agogley;
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
Jan 24th, 2008
agogley
Agilius: “Ridicule has its place and context”
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.
Jan 24th, 2008
Agilius
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.
Jan 24th, 2008
James Kirby
Hello Agilius;
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
Jan 25th, 2008
Agilius
James Kirby,
>> 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 :D], 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.
Jan 26th, 2008
James Kirby
Hello agilius;
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]
Jan 26th, 2008
Agilius
James Kirby,
>> 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. :D]
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.]
Jan 27th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Francis Schaeffer attended a class under Van Til I believe around 1936-1937.
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
Mar 9th, 2008
Reply to “Rabbits and Giraffes”