I found the above interesting video in which Pastor Doug Wilson (Calvinist) debates with Dr Kurt Jaros (Arminian) the question of whether God “decrees all evil,” which is the Calvinist theological position that Doug Wilson supports. It is a 2½ hours long video, so I will confine my comments in this post to the 15 minute opening statement by Doug Wilson. At around 10:23 minutes into the video Doug begins his opening statement as follows:
“All right, thank you. Thanks for the invitation to participate in this most important debate, it is a crucial topic. My thanks to Marlon, the organizers, and to Dr Kurt Jaros for agreeing to debate this question; and as has already been mentioned, the topic before us today is, Does God decree evil acts? My reply to this question is in the affirmative; and I would like to put forward two basic reasons for my embrace of the affirmative: The first is that scripture explicitly says that God does this; and it does so in multiple places. So there are many places in scripture where we are told that God does in fact determine, decree, plan, send, evil.”
That is obviously something that requires prooftexts to be answered, which he provides later on in his statement; so I will wait to respond to it when he gives his quotes. He then continues:
“The second reason is that the scripture explicitly teaches that God created and sustains the world, together with all its evil. So the first is, what the Bible says explicitly, addressing the question before us; and the second is, one step back; the question before us has to do with all the evil things that happen in the world. Well, who made the world? Who put the world here? Now while there was no evil at the point of creation: Genesis tells us very clearly that God looked on everything that he had created, and behold it was very good, it was very good; it was good, it was good, it was very good; God certainly knew at the point of creation the evil that would come; and he created the world anyhow. So there was no evil in the world at the moment of creation; but God knew that there would be a Fall, God knew that there would be a rebellion, God knew that there would be sin, and he created the world regardless. So I would then like to conclude my opening statement with an illustration that makes it plain that this was all done purposefully; and that it was not a botched attempt at a universe. So it wasn’t like God was making the world, and he slipped and dropped it, or anything like that. This is all according to a divine purpose and plan.”
There is a hidden premise there that he does not explicitly state. The hidden assumption is that God agrees with, or approves of, or concedes to (and indirectly even causes) all the evil that exists in the world—committed by the wickedness and evil intentions of men—which fails to take into account an important consideration. The Bible makes it clear that the purpose of this present (temporary) world order is to test mankind to see if they would choose good or evil; to obey or disobey God; and then to be judged for their actions; and be rewarded or punished accordingly:
Acts 17:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
John 5:
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
That is a theme that runs throughout the Bible. The purpose of this (brief) mortal existence is to test mankind to see if they would choose good or evil, and then to be judged, and be rewarded or punished as the case may be, depending on how they have acted in this life. How could God judge mankind for the good or evil that they have done in this world, if they were not free to choose good or evil? That is a question that Doug does not attempt to answer. Another important consideration that Doug Wilson does not take into account is that this present state of the world order that we now live in, with all the evil that is in it, is temporary, and lasts but a small moment, compared to the rest of eternity. It is not something that is going to continue forever. Once this (brief) testing period is over, we will enter into an eternal state where we will each receive the just consequences of our actions in this life (good or bad); and where the present state of affairs no longer exists. Doug then continues his reasoning as follows:
“So let us begin with the plain statements of scripture; and I would like to ask you to allow me to begin with something that is a little bit autobiographical; and in doing that I would like to quote from a book that I contributed to, a book called “Back to Basics”. I contributed the section on basic Calvinism, which is what we are talking about here; and this is what I said, when I was first struggling with this issue: ‘Does God decree evil?’ Acts 4:27-28 was my undoing. There it says, ‘for truly against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together, to do whatever your hand and your purpose determined before to be done.’ So the most heinous crime ever committed was the crucifixion of Christ; and no matter how hard some try to get around this important truth; the Bible declares that God decreed that Christ would be executed. Acts 2:23 declares both that the Christ was delivered up in accordance with God’s sovereign plan, and, that those who put him to death were responsible for their crime; so this man Christ, this man referring to Christ, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men, and put him to death.”
The problem with using that example to support his theology is that the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ was a volitional act. They didn’t put him to death against his will. He laid down his life willingly and voluntarily; and he had the power to prevent it from happening if he had wanted to:
John 10:
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
And those who put him to death were not all equally evil either. Pontius Pilate recognised his innocence, and tried to rescue him from it, but the people wouldn’t have it. Interestingly, Jesus himself does not attempt to defend himself before Pilate, to save himself from execution. Pilate recognizes his innocence even though Jesus was not trying to defend himself. Jesus had to die in order to rescue the rest of us from our sins. If Jesus hadn’t been put to death, none of us could have been saved. So the execution of Jesus Christ is not exactly the best example to use to explain the existence of evil in the world. If he hadn’t been executed, we would still be remaining in our sins. Doug Wilson then continues his explanation as follows:
“In the same breath, Acts 2:23 declares, both that the Christ was delivered up in accordance with God’s sovereign plan; and that those who put him to death were responsible for their godlessness. To be true to the plain meaning of scripture, I had to admit that divine sovereignty and human responsibility live together comfortably in scripture. Scripture presents no tension between sovereignty and responsibility. It is not either divine sovereignty or human responsibility; it is both divine sovereignty and human responsibility, close quote. …”
That again is somewhat a misleading and deceptive argument. The deceptiveness of it lies in the fact that he uses the term “sovereignty” with a specialized, Calvinistic meaning that requires clarification and explanation. What he means by it is meticulous predestination and predetermination of all things by God from the beginning, including all the choices, desires, decisions, and actions (good or evil) of man. If that be the case, then “human responsibility” is meaningless; there is no such thing. It is either one or the other. The fact that scripture does indeed teach human responsibility, suggests he needs to revise his definition of “sovereignty,” because the two are not compatible. The sovereignty of God is not the issue here. No one who believes in one supreme Deity of heaven would deny his sovereignty. Jews don’t; Muslims don’t. It is how you define that sovereignty that makes all the difference. The truth is that Calvinism’s definition of sovereignty of God is not the only one in existence. It is possible for God to be fully sovereign over his creation, without meticulously predestining and predetermining all the thoughts, feelings, desires, and actions (good or evil) of man.
From the Calvinist point of view, this of course raises the question of how God was able to arrange for the crucifixion of Jesus by the hand of wicked men, if he does not control, and is not in charge of all of their evil desires and actions? The answer is that foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination. The fact that God can foresee and foreknow how men will react in a given situation (and make use of it to accomplish his purpose), does not mean that he must have caused it to be such. How did God know that if David took refuge in the city of Keilah, that the inhabitants would hand him over to Saul (1 Sam. 23:12)? Was it because he had “predestined” it? Obviously not, because it didn’t happen. So how did God know? The answer is, Because he is God. Just because we can’t fathom how God can do something, it doesn’t logically follow that therefore he can’t. He then continues his argument as follows:
“Before I admitted that God determines the course of all things; this was back in the late 80s, when I was working through all this, before I admitted that God determines the course of all things, including every evil act; I needed to know that God knew how to handle our evil deeds in a way that did not impugn his holiness. God is holy; God is holiness itself; nothing, no view of the world, no view of scripture, is tolerable that would violate that holiness. So God is absolutely good, absolutely righteous, absolutely holy; and so I needed to know that God knew how to touch evil things, and use them, without impugning his holiness. And so this passage, acts 4, this passage knocked me down on that point. I saw that the crucifixion was the worst thing that our sinful race ever did; it was the worst crime ever committed. And I saw that God was the one who had determined beforehand that it would happen.”
First of all, the death of Christ was a sacrificial offering, it was not something that happened against his will. Jesus needed to die; that was his mission and purpose; therefore his death was foreordained and prearranged in the will of God from the beginning. He was the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (1 Peter 1:19-20, Revelation 13:8). It does not logically follow therefore that everybody else who is killed, murdered, assassinated etc., it was because God had foreordained and predestined it to happen. God knows in his foreknowledge that such things will happen, and allows it to happen so that those who commit the crime can be held accountable for their actions on judgment day—because that is the purpose of this (brief) mortal experience. But that does not mean that God had approved, predestined, and predetermined the evil deeds to happen. Therefore comparing all acts of murder to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is not a valid comparison. He continues:
“When Jesus was submitting to his destiny in the garden, he was submitting to the will of his Father; and the will of his Father was accomplished through the hands of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Sanhedrin, and Judas; and the flaking of the disciples that you know, the collapsing of Peter, and so on. And so my question was answered. A holy God knows how to pick up and use an unholy instrument.”
Not quite. God knows how to utilize the evil desires and intentions of evil men to accomplish his purposes; but that does not mean that he has predestined, predetermined, and caused them to have the evil desires and intentions that they have. For example in the Old Testament we read that God made use of the evil designs, arrogance, conceit, and pride of the Assyrians to punish and deport the northern kingdom of Israel; as well as to chasten and punish the southern kingdom of Judah. But after God’s purpose had been accomplished by Assyria, Assyria itself was punished for its arrogance, haughtiness, pride, and evil designs. He continues:
“I did not yet know at that time, I did not yet know that God does this all the time, in every instance. I didn’t know that God decreed every evil act; but I now knew that he could do so if he wanted; and would be no less holy for it. If God can do it one time, God can do it two times; and if God can do it two times, he can do it three times, and so on.”
Like I said, if he is now comparing the evil act of the crucifixion of Jesus with every other evil act, that is not a valid comparison. Just because the crucifixion of Jesus needed to happen, and God had foreordained and predetermined it to happen, and it was necessary for it to happen; it does not logically follow that every other crime, murder, and evil act that is committed, was likewise predestined and predetermined to happen. The two situations are not the comparable. God knows in his foreknowledge that such things will happen; which is not the same as having caused, predestined, and predetermined it to happen. He continues:
“I no longer said, It is impossible for God to decree an evil act, because that would violate his holiness; because we know from Acts 4:27, that he did it at least once.”
Not quite. That is not a valid interpretation of Acts 4:27. See above. He continues:
“Now it turns out, however, that it is not just acts 4:27-28. It turns out that there are many passages that describe God exercising his sovereignty through evil deeds, the evil deeds of men; so what about sinful actions? A false inference lies behind our objection to God’s control of sin. We think that this makes God sinful in himself, or somehow the author of sin, which I think is false. But first the statements of scripture: Joseph, speaking in Genesis: ‘But as for you, you meant evil against me’ (he is speaking to his brothers, who had sold him into slavery in Egypt), ‘But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring about as it is this day to save many people alive.’ That is Genesis 50 verse 20.”
That is a scripture that is commonly used (misquoted) by Calvinists in support of their theology. Joseph’s brothers had evil intentions. They sold their brother Joseph into slavery in Egypt because of their evil intentions. The fact that God knew and was aware of their evil intent, and permitted it to happen, and made use of it to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish by it, rather than what the brothers thought they were accomplishing by it, does not mean that the brothers therefore had been predestined and predetermined by God to have those evil desires and intentions, and to commit the evil act that they did. That is not a valid conclusion, or a logical requirement. He continues:
“You can also see Isaiah 45:7; and Amos 3:6. In Amos 3:6 ‘Can disaster befall a city—if disaster befalls a city, or if evil befalls the city, have not I the Lord done it?”
The word used in the KJV in those contexts is “evil,” which he has correctly interpreted to mean “disaster,” or the judgment that God brings about on cities or nations collectively as punishment for their sins; it should not be confused with the word “evil” in the normal sense of the term, in the context that we have been discussing above. He continues:
“And then Jesus says in Mark 14:30, Jesus said to him, ‘Assuredly I say to you, that today, even this night before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ So Jesus predicted beforehand, Jesus called the shot, that Peter was going to do something. Peter denied that he was going to do it; and Jesus said, ‘No, you are going to do it.’ That means that the behavior of Peter was in some sense scripted. In fact, the behavior of everybody was scripted, down to the behavior of chickens.”
Not correct. Foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination. That is the logical fallacy of both Calvinism and open theism. It is not true. He continues:
“And then Luke 22:22, ‘And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed.’ So it is determined for the Son of Man to go, to be handed over, to be betrayed; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed. So we see two things: We see that Jesus is going, just as it has been determined; and we also see the moral responsibility of the man who betrayed him.”
Sure, which proves that wickedness of the person who betrayed him was not predestined or predetermined. He continues:
“So when we Christians, as is common practice, when we ask the Lord for traveling mercies when we are about to do a road trip, where we ask for traveling mercies on the road, he doesn’t reply to us, ‘Yes, I will protect you as best I can; but drunkenness is a sin, and I don’t do drunks, good luck with them.’”
I am not sure what his point is with that one. He continues:
“The Bible teaches that God hardens hearts: Joshua 11:20; Deuteronomy 2:30: Exodus 4:21. And hardening your heart is an evil act; … it is not an evil act for God to do it. But when God does it, you do it, and it is an evil act for you. So when Pharaoh hardened his heart, he was sinning; and God is the one who determined that that is what was going to happen. Scripture teaches that God absolutely controls wicked men. A chain of verses here: Job 1:13-15; Job 1:17; Job 1:21; Isaiah 10:5-6; Judges 9:22-23; 1 Samuel 2:25; 2 Samuel 12:11-12; Psalm 105:24-25; Proverbs 16:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12; and this is the point at issue in our debate. So we see in multiple passages of scripture, God determining, or decreeing, or settling, or sending men to do something; and for those men who are doing it, it is a sin, it is an evil thing; and yet God is in control of it.”
We Latter-day Saints have reasons to believe, through modern revelation, that those biblical passages that talk about God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, are scribal errors, and should read that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. As for the other biblical passages that he has quoted, the answer is the same as given above. God is able, through his foreknowledge, to make use of the evil desires and intentions of men to accomplish his purposes, without having caused, decreed, predestined, or predetermined their evil desires and intentions. He continues:
“But what about with regard to salvation? The Bible is no less clear here. Consider what it says in 1 peter, this is 1 peter 2:7-9, ‘Therefore to you who believe, he is precious; but to those who are disobedient, the stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.’ They stumble, this is the key place, they stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. They stumble, being disobedient to the word to which they also were appointed; but ‘you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, his own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.’ So that is my first point. There are multiple passages of scripture that describe God doing precisely those things that we are debating whether or not he does; so that is the first point.”
What he is saying here is that God predetermined who will do good and will be saved, just as he predetermined who will do evil and will be damned, both of which are equally incorrect. God has perfect foreknowledge of who will do evil and who will do good, which is not the same as saying that he has predetermined it to be such. He continues:
“The second point is that God created the world, and the world is a messed up place. This world is crammed full of evil; and so the question naturally arises: who put it here, why do such things happen? Chesterton once said this, quote: ‘If it be true, as it certainly is, that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat; then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions: He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat. What does it mean to deny the cat? Denying the cat means skimming over the surface of the fact of evil. Evil is a terrible reality in our world. Even during the time of this debate, countless evil deeds are perpetrated all over the world. There are billions of us running around, and we are all sinners, and we do awful things to each other. So, a glib response to this observation, about denying the cat, don’t deny the cat—a glib response goes on at length to tell victims of these and other evils, that they don’t deserve to have these things happen to them; but it does so while serenely neglecting the follow-up responsibility to explain why they are happening? Then you cannot just say to victims everywhere, You do not deserve to be abused. Isn’t the next question obvious: why then am I abused? Is God just or not? Is God in control or not? Say a horrific murder takes place; and remember, when we talk about this to avoid denying the cat, these murders occur.”
The correct answer was given above. The answer is that this present world, that we are now experiencing, is a testing ground, to see who will do good and who will do evil, who will obey or disobey God, and be rewarded or punished accordingly. Men must be free in this life to choose evil as well as good, so that they can be held accountable for their actions on judgment day. If God intervened to stop people from doing evil every time somebody was going to try, that would defeat the objective of the present creation. The good news is that the present world order is not going to last very long. This temporary period of testing will soon come to an end, and we will all enter into an eternal state in which the present condition no longer applies. He continues:
“It is glib, and very easy to charge the God of Calvinism, with the sin of commission, who ordained this? Did God ordain this before the foundation of the world? I would say yes, he did; and then the response is often: Well, I could never worship a God like that. But may we cross-examine the God of Arminianism also, or the God of open theism also? Why can we not charge God with sins of omission as well, together with the Apostle Paul. I am out of my mind to talk like this of course! When the murder is happening, was your God in the room? Who was keeping the criminal’s heart beating? Who held the atoms of the knife together? And incidentally, every free will defense concedes the point of our debate—and that is not so incidentally actually. Every free will defense concedes the point of our debate. We are debating whether God decrees evil acts; and the free will defense explains that God had good reasons for doing so; which means he did so.”
Well he is not making a lot of sense as far as I am concerned. I am neither Arminian nor open theist, and my aim is not to defend their theological positions. They will have to defend themselves. But I certainly adhere to the absolute freewill of man, and will defend that position without hesitation or reservation; and what he is saying doesn’t make a lot of sense. My “freewill” theological position, from my point of view, can be summarized as follows: God created mankind possessing 100% libertarian freewill—no predestination or predetermination of man’s choices, decisions, or desires—good or evil. God created this world as a testing ground, to see who would choose good and who would choose evil, so they could be judged, and be rewarded or punished accordingly. The reason why evil exists (necessarily) in our present world condition is because mankind must be free to commit evil acts as well as good, so that they can be judged according to their actions, and the judgment that God will bring upon them on judgment day will be just. It is impossible for it to be otherwise. The good news is that it won’t last very long; and soon we will all enter into an eternal state where the present condition no longer applies. Does Doug Wilson have a valid response to all of that? I doubt it! We will have to wait and see. And Arminianism and open theism are not the only possible alternatives to Calvinism, better alternatives exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment