Roger Olson’s newest book, Against Calvinism, is a fair-minded description of “mere Calvinism,” a sketch of how this mere Calvinism is not the same or identical with Reformed theology, and is also a critique of mere Calvinism. This book is matched by Michael Horton’s book that defends Calvinism, a book I have not seen. (Horton’s is called For Calvinism.) Olson’s approach is to examine what leading proponents of mere Calvinism actually say.
Roger Olson argues that it is not just Calvinism (or Reformed theology) that believes in God’s sovereignty, and he is arguing that some in today’s versions of Calvinism think they (and they alone) actually believe in divine sovereignty. Not so, so do Arminians. (But Olson’s not offering an Arminian theology.)
How can one believe in “meticulous providence” and not make God culpable of sin and evil? Does God control all in the sense of determining all? Concretely: Does God determine that children suffer with cancer or that a sexual maniac rape a young child? How is God extricated from causation in such matters for those who affirm meticulous providence/determinism?
The issue here is “meticulous providence,” that God ordains, determines and brings about everything. He begins with Zwingli, a notable influence on Calvin in this subject, then to Calvin, then Edwards, then Sproul, then Boettner, then Paul Helm and finally Piper. There are nuanced differences here, and you can go to the book for the details. Olson sums it up with this:
In high Calvinism, God’s sovereignty in his providence means that everything down to the minutest details of history and individual lives, including persons’ thoughts and actions, are foreordained and rendered certain by God. Even evil thoughts and actions are planned and brought about such that God ‘sees to it’ that they happen to carry out his will. Nothing at all, whatever, falls outside God’s predestining plan and activity.
Yet, God is not stained by the evil that creatures do even though he renders it certain…
God renders sin and evil certain not by coercing or forcing people to do them by withdrawing or withholding that divine influence that they would need not to sin and do evil.
Olson then responds to the problem of God’s reputation and to the problem of human freedom and divine responsibility.
Big point: “Calvinists affirm God’s perfect goodness and love, but their belief in meticulous providence and absolute, all-determining sovereignty (determinism) undermines what they say.” In other words, this “makes God the author of sin, evil and innocent suffering…”. Of course, mere Calvinists deny this by nuancing what “author” means, but in the end Olson is convinced (so am I) that the emphasis on sovereignty implicates God in evil. That is, what “goodness” means when applied to God loses its shape to what we know to be true about goodness, and we knows this from the Incarnation itself.
One of the major issues is the meaning of permission. God permits but does not cause, etc.. Olson: “Who would believe that a teacher who withholds the information students need to pass a course merely permitted them to fail?… And what if the teacher argued that he or she actually planned and rendered the students’ failure certain for a good reason — to uphold academic standards and show a great teacher he or she is by demonstrating how necessary his or her information is for students to pass? Would not these admissions only deepen everyone’s conviction that the teacher is morally and professionally wrong?” (85).
And he presses with others that the Calvinist notion of permission weakens its already-stated conviction about God’s sovereignty. Where, for instance, did the desire for sin come from if not God — if God is deterninative?
Olson also questions the freedom of God. He wonders aloud if the statement that all is for God’s glory ultimately makes God somewhat dependent on God’s creation and creatures. Olson contends that it is only by a sheer act of will that leads mere Calvinists to believe in the incoherence of these matters. That is, you can believe God is good and not involved in sin but the view of sovereignty is incoherent with goodness.
Olson’s book is not a defense of Arminianism but he contends this can all be resolved by a sovereign God who sovereignly self-limits himself. God permits because God chooses to grant humans the kind of freedom that God does not deny. God has a perfect will — what God wants for all — and a consequent will — what God wants in light of human rebellion. God is now allowing his sovereignty to be challenged.
That was one of my bigger beefs with Calvinism: God was sovereign and could do anything, yet God was apparently not powerful enough to both be sovereign and permit His creatures free will. It seemed to me more a deficiency of the theologian’s imagination, rather than of God.
The only thing they could imagine was a determinism that somehow lets God off the hook for sin… but they couldn’t explain it in a way where ultimately He got off on a technicality.
Anyway, looking forward to reading both books, once my budget allows. Too bad we have to wait a decade for the one-volume edition.
K.W.Leslie’s description of his ‘beef’ with Calvinism is clear. What really makes me crazy is what this schema says about me! What does it mean that I am created in the image of God? If I have no freedom, if my decisions and actions do not have eternal impact, then I have more in common with the rest of creation than I do with the Creator, more in common with dogs than with God.
I am eagerly awaiting my copy of God at War, written by Greg Boyd. He is an Open Theist. Open Theism states that God does not know the future, because the future does not exist (so there is nothing to know about it). God only knows all possible futures. And acts accordingly. That leaves room for free will and accountability. Some would call that position a radical Arminian one. But even that position leaves me with the question you state.
Consider Ex 31:28 “If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death.
Here the owner did not know for sure that his bull was going to kill. But he could have guessed it. So he is responsible according to Thora. So even though he did not determine the future (calvinist), nor foreknow it (arminian), but only knew options (open theism), he is still responsible.
Greetings,
Pieter
Pieter,
The difference is that the man is responsible for the bull, knows that the bull is likely to cause harm (he’s been warned) but has refused to do anything about it.
God gave free will to mankind. This made the fall a possibility, but was it likely? Was God warned that this would probably happen? In the Open Theism view, God didn’t know it WOULD happen, and we don’t know how likely it was. Once it did, God cannot override that free will without revoking it.
The difference is that the man is culpable for abdicating responsibility which leads to someone’s death. God is not.
Dear Stephen
Thank you for your response. But can we continue this argument after the fall? God is, I understand, in the open theism view, fully able to intervene. Shouldn’t he have intervened in the case of some of the worst dictators? They had performed one massacre, shouldn’t God prevent the next one to come? Isn’t God in a way responsible, if he does not intervene?
Greetings
Pieter
And it seems like their view of God’s sovereignty and predestination, logically carried out at length obviously leads them to this conclusion. Others who hold to the beginning tenets of Calvinism but don’t go that far live with an unresolved tension. Or in some kind of denial based on something like the thought: that is a mystery of God beyond us.
Olson believes he is right, so he argues his case.
But if Olson is wrong he still has to argue this case because God predetermined that he would argue a point that is false without understanding the real truth.
I am reading the online Kindle version of For Calvinism, so hard copies should ship soon.
Dave W
Pieter,
In the Open Theism view, God cannot intervene in any and every situation as this would negate free will. Greg Boyd in particular has argued that God has given us free will that allows us to do evil to the same extent that we can love. He has put boundaries on our free will (you cannot simply do anything you want), but the freedom he has given us is, by necessity, equally bi-directional.
The question is simple — simplistic I know at times — but are we mere puppets or real partners with God? Calvinism is divine puppetry, and there is no escaping that conclusion despite the “freedom” it allows for mankind to effect “second causes” that must still be caused by God, if He is deterministic and “causes all things.”
Paul W. (11) and Rick (13) – But you know, to be perfectly honest, Paul J. (10) said what I was thinking. I haven’t read Olson’s book; I’ve (at least temporarily) made peace with my Calvinism vs. Arminian theological wrangling.
The validity of Calvinism broke down for me exactly as it did for Paul J. If God is sovereign over good and evil alike, and God also sentences those to whom He chooses to withhold His grace to ECT, then my relationship with God was essentially stuck between a rock and a hard place. If that is truly God’s nature, I’m not so sure it is a god that I would trust. Unless…in the end, God does reveal His grace to all, so that all have an equal chance of freely accepting the gift of salvation. I think the emergence of neo-Calvinist theology caused me to consider universal salvation, or at least some other possibilities than ECT, whereas I had never really thought about it before.
My 4th grade son was once told in a discussion of a children’s Bible lesson authored by Piper that “the devil is God’s agent,” and in the next breath, “be good, because God is watching you at all times!” My 4th grader expressed his cognitive dissonance at these two conflicting ideas about God. On the one hand, God controls everything, and uses the devil to orchestrate evil in the world. On the other hand, we need to be alert and self-controlled, because if we mess up, BAM! God will see and punish us. It can be very confusing to a child, let alone for a grown-up!
This response is for Pieter’s #3 comment above:
Boyd’s book is wonderful and had a big impact on the way I view divine providence and the problem of evil. I’d love to hear what you think.
I’d also like to ready your blog, but I can only read English
I can’t help but think of Job when I read this stuff. Satan asks for God’s permission to do some pretty evil things and what does God say? He tells him to go for it. Does that implicate God in the evil that Satan did?
Or how about Peter? Jesus says to Him ““Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat..” Does this implicate God in the evil things that Satan had done?
I think many have drawn a picture of what they think Calvinism is all about but have not really dealt with the issues.
Susan N. #14-
Many (most?) Arminians hold to ECT too.
Are there problems with Calvinism? Perhaps (depending on where one stands), but that does not mean one should coming down harshly on the opposing side. It does not help move the discussion forward.
I happened to be reading something from Driscoll last night, and while he disagrees with Arminianism, he did not hesitate to speak of them as fellow Christians who base their views on worthy sources (Scripture for example). He just disagrees with their conclusions.
That is not the attitude Paul J. expressed.
I can’t tell you what a relief it is to read your thoughtful analysis. I find great danger in extreme Calvanism. Had an 18 month “dark night of the soul” when we were stationed in Asia surrounded by Calvanists who tried to convince me that God doesn’t Allow suffering, he Causes it. They believed that he devises our sufferings in advance “Leah will have cancer, let’s see, 5 miscarriages etc…” I am reconciled with suffering, but my entire belief in the goodness of His character pitches and pivots on this one issue. If in fact he devises “suffering lists” as one in the group would argue, then yes, he ordains evil and cannot be good. And I cannot worship a God who authors evil. C.s Lewis offers great arguments against the total depravity of man, but how I wish I had read your article during a time that nearly caused me to relinquish my faith. Thank you!
I have to say as a reluctant Calvinist, that none of these objections strike me as all that substantial. I would be more than willing to be persuaded away from this view of God and creation, but using analogies that do not properly extend into God’s unique situation will not do the job.
Good stuff. I am a former Calvinist who held to meticulous providence. I am pretty familiar with Helm, Piper, and also A. W. Pink. For me, the turning point came when I began to see this as a system that embraced the logical outcome of a series of texts and stories. The huge problem was how one integrates that with other texts and stories. I finally embraced a story of deeper mystery between God’s sovereignty and human freedom.
As I read Scripture, I see the following:
1. God is good, loving, and holy (and much more!)
2. God is meticulously sovereign
3. God is not blameworthy for evil
4. People have real moral responsibility (not puppets)
Can I reconcile these? No, and (this may be a defect in my character) I have come to peace with the thought of mystery when it comes to the differences between the Infinite Creator and the finite creation.
I can appreciate why others may not have come to peace with these.
I also see all of this in Reformed theology, but only three (not the 2nd) in Arminian thinking as I understand it.
Amazon says it will be one to three months before Olson’s book is delivered. I’ll have to wait to see if Olson persuades me that the Bible does not teach what I think it does. But I doubt I’ll be dissuaded just by being told what I hold is contradictory or illogical.
I’ve had to do some editing of comments today — shall I say “deleting” — because of harshness. Again, it’s fine to disagree with Calvinism, but we are called to do so charitably and so I will enforce civility.
Dan #18 — This is the kind of “cop out” that Calvinists are famous for when this man-made system is challenged with respect to the logical, Biblical AND theological incoherence of meticulous determinism. It sounds like this. “I am skiing in the Swiss Alps today. At exactly the same time I am surfing in Hawaii. I know, it makes no sense and it sounds impossible. But I can do it in such a way as to accomplish both. It’s a mystery that cannot be reconciled. Just accept it.”
In the same way, God can cause evil, you cannot stop it even though you are commanded to, and yet you, not He, are responsible for it. Just accept that.
The incoherence of this from a God who desires order is incomprehensible when ALL the texts are considered.
Sorry, not being harsh. Just stating the reality — the Bible itself calls us to “search the Scriptures” (as the Bereans did). We cannot simply default to an incoherent position that obviously needs to be modified in light of the BIble (not a system through which we read it), by simply saying things like “Well, God’s ways are mysterious.” True. But the Calvinist’s confident declarations of his mysterious ways need not be so vague and ill-conceived. It is time to reassess the Great Confessions in light of the BIble.
Rick – point well taken. It is not really relevant to the conversation to question someone’s status as a Christian based on differing interpretations of scripture. Apparently, though, some have felt that asserting their “right” beliefs is crucial to effective evangelism (with conversion and discipleship as the goal). It does seem to me that competition within Christianity for converts and disciples of a particular systematic theology drives much of the unhealthy conversation. When dialogue with the intent of mutual, respectful understanding are the goal, we can have a productive discussion. I do admire Roger Olson for his ability to stay cool and speak truth in a context of love, even when he and his beliefs have been attacked.
It wasn’t my intention to egg on harsh responses in this discussion, only to empathize with Paul J. — to say that I can understand/relate to his feelings of anger and resentment at what (and I agree with him) is a distortion of God’s character. I’m reminded of a recent Weekly Meandering link: In defending one’s position, or God’s honor/character, be careful not to become the thing you purportedly are against; in other words, a “doppleganger” of an angry, self-righteous person. Memorable advice
I’m looking forward to the day that Dr. Olson tells us:
1. How to really, really read Romans 8, the book of Job, Acts 2 and Gen 50. That is: when the Bible says that God really, really did plan human suffering & evil /for our good/, what do we make of that?
2. Given that we agree — there is human suffering on God’s watch — how does God restraining himself make him not a moral monster? That is: Olsen (and others) say God is a moral monster because he (Rom 8 language) uses all things (including typhoons and famine and earthquakes) for the good of those who love Him, but how is God not a moral monster if there is evil in the world which he allows through intentional restraint (a less-charitable word would be “neglect”)?
3. What would an unfair caricature of “mere calvinism” be, in Olsen’s view? From my view, it’s unfair to call Arminians synergists in the strict sense of the term or (as some do) pelagians or semi-pelagians. Could Olsen identify criticisms of Calvinism which he would class as unfair — and if not, why not?
It will also be interesting for Dr. McKnight to cover Dr. Horton’s book since they are a matched set and compare the arguments set forth between them.
I’m Reformed, but though I believe in God’s sovereignty I guess I don’t believe in the “high Calvinism” of meticulous providence.
Discussions of God’s sovereignty frustrate me because people often seem to conflate the term with omnipotence or something similar. “Sovereignty” can mean absolute control, and that is indeed how many (most?) Calvinists have used the term over the ages.
But sovereignty can also mean “authority,” which is different and I think better than “control.” To say that a king or queen is sovereign over a nation is not to say that they control and micromanage every single thing that happens in the kingdom–rather, that their authority holds sway over their subjects, who have the freedom to either recognize or flout that authority.
That’s the view of sovereignty at work in the European neocalvinism of Abraham Kuyper and others, and the view I agree with. To me, God’s sovereignty isn’t a means by which God controls everything I do, it’s a calling and challenge for me to recognize God’s authority in everything I do and to participate in the kingdom in every area of life.
Frank, stay tuned, as I announced in the first post of this series. I have read two chps in Michael’s book and will cover it as I have covered Roger Olson’s book.
Hi Bill #20,
I think you were addressing me – not been called Dan before.
Like I said, it may be a character defect that I can live with the incomprehensibilty of God when it comes to my inability (maybe my stupidity) in not being able to reconcile the four points I see arising from Scripture that I pointed out in my original comment.
I hold to Reformed theology based on my reading of Scripture, which reading is continually being challenged and refined and re-affirmed as I continue to read, think, pray, and live. Although I would say there is a certain beauty to this theology, I hold to it not due to logic (it certainly seems illogical) but because this is what I understand from Scripture.
For me at least, I would have to be dissuaded based on Scripture. Recently Prof Olson posted about Arminian readings of Romans 9. As I follow up on that perhaps God will have mercy on me should my current understanding be wrong, and he will show me a better understanding.
@ Frank (#22):
With respect to no. 1 above, I often think of those instances as isolated—not normative. With respect to no. 2, the dilemma is clear enough: either (1) he actively does these things; (2) he actively does not stop them from happening (in a world succumbed to sin—precisely b/c he has sovereignly decided to limit himself [kind of like he did on the cross]); (3) he cannot do anything about them.
I’ll go with number 2 for now. But I’m not sure how it gets him off the hook completely, as you suggest. It’s probably at this point where we ought to cover our mouths.
Frank (22) – I’m no Bible scholar (disclaimer), but Romans 8:28 (and all of Ch. 8 for that matter) is a verse which has had ongoing, deep meaning in my life. From the time I read it and really thought about it as a teenager, I continued to wrestle with the meaning. I suppose, given my curious, questioning nature, I will continue to always seek more understanding and never feel that I’ve “arrived” at total certainty on some theological matters (in this life, anyway).
However, one helpful interpretation that I have read/heard is that the text does *not* say that God CAUSES all things to happen.
To phrase it the “old school” way that I learned it as a teenager (KJV), “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”
The way I understand that is, even when bad stuff happens to us (which God does not necessarily cause or orchestrate), He is working good from it on our behalf; causing it to ultimately bring about a good outcome in us, in the world, and for His glory.
As a non-Calvinist (at least of the 5-point TULIP variety), that understanding is much more palatable and makes more sense to my understanding of God in the context of my relationship with Him in and through Christ. I can pray, even in the bad stuff that has happened/is happening, “Your will be done; bring good from this, Lord, and help me to see Your love from which I cannot be separated in this situation. As Christ’s ambassadors in this world, I think we have an opportunity, every time we see bad stuff happening around us, to speak God’s loving goodness into the situation, and be a healing presence. Earthquakes, tsunamis, famine — our opportunities to show God’s glory in action.
Peace to you, Frank… You hit a nerve with me in that question (Rom. 8:28), because it was a crucial, make-or-break issue in my faith (a dark night of the soul), once upon a long, long time ago…
I have a sincere question for my arminian brethren, and especially for those intrigued by open theism. It might be better to e-mail me directly at robin(dot)rhea(at)gmail(dot)com.
I am having a hard time understanding how having a low view of sovereignty (if you are an arminian with a high view this does not pertain to you) or being an open theist is compatible with prayer.
If prayer just brings our will in tune with the divine will, no problem. But if we ask God for things, ask him to bring rain, or heal our bodies, or save our families, or even incline our friends to be willing to hear the gospel…then we are asking him to do things which (1) require that he exercise his sovereignty in a way that looks very much like providence (2) require that he change things in the physical world that will greatly change our free-will responses and even possibly (3) ask him to directly determine free-will responses.
I mean, when I look at the prayers offered up in scripture, it seems like they definitely offered them to a God that they thought was capable of not only stepping in and sovereignly and providentially parting the red sea, but influencing the mind and choices of individuals “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.”
Is it just a matter of cognitive dissonance, your theology says he shouldn’t control these things, but you pray as though he does…or do people with this view really not pray for the conversion of others, etc.?
Again, this is probably a threadjack, so it is best to e-mail me if you have a response. I don’t want to tempt Scot and his delete button.
Frank: I just read Acts 2 and I don’t understand why you included that one. I’m not sure about the tension in Genesis 50, either. The actions are “intended” by Joseph’s brother, and God “intends” to use those actions for good. Romans 8 just says God is working “in all things”: it is different to be working amongst, or in evil situations and to bring about good, than it is to cause those evil situations. Job is perhaps the most interesting, as God allows Satan to cause evil. But consider this: if Job wanted to portray God to be meticulously providential, surely the last thing that is necessary is to delegate the dirty work to Satan. And yet the author of Job didn’t not want to suggest that God was directly responsible. I read this as an argument strongly AGAINST meticulous providence, even as it may bring up other questions.
In point 2, you seem to suggest that the difference between making evil inevitable by God withdrawing his restraining presence and God sitting by on the sidelines while evil happens are the same thing. I agree that both are potentially morally problematic. But under a high Calvinist scheme, the buck only stops with God, and therefore, even the origin of evil has to be God’s doing and only God’s doing.
With legitimate causation on the part of other agents, God is still implicated in inaction, but he is not on the hook for the original actions of evil agents. Take the psalms: the psalms do hold God accountable for seeming to stand on the sidelines, and yet there is a clear distinction between the evil that comes from “evildoers” and the calamity that comes from God as punishment for sin or for unknown reasons. So I can live with a bit of mystery as to why God sits on the sidelines, as I see that reflected in a lot of biblical texts, but I can’t see how to worship a God who is the origin of evil.
Scot,
Do you know if Olsen deals directly with Augustine (old and young) on this issue. I know his earlier works were attempts to refute Manicheans that said monotheism required God to be the direct source of evil, thus he said “No, we have free will” and his latter struggles against Pelagius led him to say “It isn’t really free in the same way that Pelagius says it is.”
Robin,
It seems funny to me that you consider prayer to be a problem for non Calvinists. Funny because that is one of the reasons I have for not being a Calvinist. I guess our own thoughts always more sense to us than they do to others.
Simply put. I believe my will is a real thing, not an illusion. God’s will is a real thing and He apparently can be influenced by us! To suppose that non-Calvinists believe that God can’t control or influence events and minds is an erroneous supposition. God is not hands off; rather He wants to work through our prayers as an outworking of our role as regents on the earth. That’s my amateur view of the sovereignty in prayer issue.
Percival,
I think the level of a problem it is depends on your particular view of what God is allowed to do without interfering with free-will. I see it as impossible to understand in an open-theist framework. As far as arminians are concerned, it depends. If God alters your will to make you more acceptable to hearing the gospel message, is this a real violation of your free-will, etc. It gets into the nuances. I fully understand how you would see prayer as incompatible with determinism. I think this is one reason that the logical system of calvinism is much less important to me than the texts which seem to indicate for and against calvinism. I can affirm all of the texts, and claim that they lead me in calvinist-ish direction, but I hold more loosely to logical conclusions of the system.
So I believe that God can turn the President’s heart in whatever direction he wants. If God chooses to, he can make the President Pro-Life tomorrow, so I pray for him to do so. I believe he has the ability to heal any disease or disability, so I pray for him to do so. I get less worked up about whether these would be violations of free will or non-interventionism, or if they are consistent with meticulous providence. They are biblical, so I pray for them.
Robin,
I think you mis-understand how most non-calvinists understand prayer. If I am asking God to convert someone, I am asking for the grace that allows someone to come to the point where they can make a decision. I am not asking for God to violate free will. If I am asking for healing, I am asking for God to intervene in the normal physical proceedings of the world, but I am not asking for God. That is an intervention in the world, but I don’t know anyone that believes in prayer that does not believe that God intervenes.
I just don’t get what all the fuss is about. The idea that God predetermines all things through primary causation doesn’t mean that he directly causes all things nor that he’s responsible for the existence of evil. To insistent otherwise is to be obtuse.
But concerning the question of whether God is implicated in the existence of evil, the only answer one could possibly give is, “Of course!” To the extent God is implicated in the existence of all things he must bear some relationship to that activity of his creation that is contrary to his divine nature.
What bugs me about the Sovereignty of God question is hoe important some people think it is. I know it’s fascinating and I used to pore over the question when I was in high school, and a little bit in college, but in the end I figured: whether God’s deciding it or not, I still have to make choices. For the most part, it doesn’t change anything. I still have to try and live right, and I still have to exercise faith and hope and love and produce the fruit of the spirit and live in peace and joy with others.
I once visited Bethlehem Baptist church in Minneapolis and heard Piper speak about the joy of accepting the full sovereingty of God. I couldn’t believe that the man had made it the crux of his spiritual life. It was entirely disconnected from real life and actual discipleship and obedience, I really couldn’t believe what I was hearing. It doesn’t bother me that they believe some of this stuff, but that it seems more important to some of them than loving your heighbor or helping the poor is mind-boggling to me.
The concept of “free” will has to be the most confused of all philosophical concepts in everyday parlance.
First of all, “freedom” is not an absolute concept but a relative concept, it doesn’t make sense to speak of a “free” will unless we have some idea of what our will is “free” from. If by free will non-Calvinists mean that the activity of our will is free from the will of God then I have to wonder how their own human will came into existence in the first place, for if it was created by God then we have the absurd situation of the will of God creating a human will that somehow acts independently of that which created its very nature!
Jake,
I agree with you, Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike obsess over this kind of stuff to their detriment.
Robin, not sure of the number of your comment, but you ask about Olson and Augustine. I can’t say for sure, as I have not read every word yet, but his focus is on Calvin and those who are major voices for his kind of readers: Calvin, Sproul, Boettner, Piper, etc..
I don’t think Arminianism or Open Theism escapes this, though, because even if God didn’t “cause” evil, He is well aware of it, able to stop it, but yet he allows it to go unchecked. Neither Arminianism nor Open Theism in itself is a solution to the problem of evil.
A seminary professor of mine once said, “Even if the first plane on September 11 took God by surprise, we ALL knew that the second one was coming.” The passengers on flight 93 knew what was up and they crashed the plane before the terrorists could kill more people with it. Why didn’t God do the same thing?
I don’t see how a God who “caused” Auschwitz is somehow less moral than a God who saw it happen and did nothing to stop it.
“Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”
The teacher analogy falls flat since the teacher is obligated to teach her students. God is not obligated to anyone. Consider that nobody (I hope) thinks ill of Dr. McKnight because he hasn’t given me enough instruction to pass one of his courses which I have not enrolled in.
Actually the teacher analogy works just fine. He never said the teacher is obligated, lets say this teacher (God) decided to teach a class (deciding to create humanity). And since we are breathing we all have enrolled in this class wether we like it or not!
- No analogy is perfect, they all break down, but this one gets his point across for the message he is focusing on just fine.
Matt 39 – no open theist or arminian believe that events in this world take God by surprise! And For all we know God did a ton of stuff around the holocaust or 9/11 that kept if from being much much worse. The reality is that in order for God to stop every evil he would have to make us robots incapable of Love. So it is understandable that he allows evil. With the promise that one day he will make all things new and put things to right with true justice!
In light of all this controversy surrounding Calvanism, which I disagree with determinism, I think it’s important to put “ourselves” into perspective. Who are we to sit in judgement of God and say He should take responsibility for the evil in the world or, He is completely absolved of the evil in the world? It’s not our place to discover these things or to search them out. And truthfully, we are wholly incapable of understanding the depth of God’s plan. “We see through a glass darkly”, as Paul put it.
We, as a very intellectual society, spend far too much time trying to reason out logicality in God. We spend too much time learning the truth of God, or the truth of God’s heart, that we never live in it, demonstrate it, or truly know the heart of God. Reference John 3:16 and II Peter 3:9. We can clearly see in the Bible that God’s heart is for everyone to have the opportunity to come to repentance. A calvanistic Bible should say in 2 Peter 3:9 “…God has determined that no one should perish…” But we don’t see this. We see “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9[ESV]
Did Peter not know the heart of God after spending 3 years walking, talking, and sharing meals with Jesus, the Son of God? I’m willing to wager that determinism wasn’t the message Jesus, Peter or any of the disciples was preaching but rather it was this: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” John 3:16-17 [ESV]
[This] is something I think we can have a common ground in. That God is not a directly or indirectly spiteful being who takes pleasure in the death of His children. Nor is He a fool who can’t get His story straight, or make up His mind about what to do. He isn’t liken to us in our mind, limited to what we can experience, learn or see. And His understanding is beyond ours. But even in His infinite wisdom, He has grace upon a sinful, spiteful, creation that has and is turning against Him on a daily basis. His grace and love were exemplified and demonstrated through Christ on the cross. This is Gods heart for us.
Aaron #42,
But now you are introducing another argument into the equation–the greater good argument. God allows evil so that a greater good (human freedom) is preserved. But Calvinists can use the same greater good argument to defeat the problem of evil–God created/enabled/decreed evil so that a greater good (the eschaton) could be brought about.
That’s why I said Arminianism and Open Theism can’t by themselves defeat the problem of evil. They need the “greater good” argument, which applies just as well to Calvinism.
Matt,
Not at all, because God allowing free will does not necessitate that evil exists. Part of having free will is the ability to choose not to do evil. And it would appear that God’s hope in creating us with free will is that we would choose to continue in love. But the necessity of giving us free will meant that he was taking a risk.
“…we have the absurd situation of the will of God creating a human will that somehow acts independently of that which created its very nature!”
Why does creation have to constrain post-creation ‘freedom?’ If so, it basically says there is a limit to God’s creative ability, that there is some power that constrains Him so that He can only create things which cannot act independently.
It is my observation that those who are troubled by historic Calvinism are troubled by what appear to them to be conflicting biblical statements such as God has determined everything according to his own will, Eph. 1:11 (paraphrased) and those text that indicate for example that God is not the author of sin. For some reason folks think that both can not be true because we can not get our finite minds around it. Truth is found beloved in the Scriptures and not in our capacity to grasp the difficulties they may pose to our limited minds at some point. If we take such a position there can be no Holy Trinity, no omnipresent God, no Jesus who knew everything because he was God but did not know the hour of his second appearing. For that matter there could be no God as He is revealed in the Bible at all.
As for this nonsense that God can not know the future because there is no future yet, this is pure rationalism flying in the face of everything the bible teaches about prophecy and about God being the framer and builder of the intricacies of the future.
Might I also say that any careful reading of the Bible slays the myth of fallen man having a free will. Dead in trespasses and sins, Eph 2; lacking all ability to obey the law of God, Romans 8; Needing to be born again, John 3; hardly makes us think of a free moral agent. Short of divine irresistible grace the only moral or ethical freedom fallen man has is he is free to sin this way or to sin that way, but never is he free to come to God for Satan and hell hold him in utter bondage.
Love all you who are brothers and sisters in Christ
Boyd
Dear Friends allow me a further word, hoping I will find the typos before I send this one. Just to get minds thinking, I will remind you that God praised the Hebrew mid-wives who lied to the Egyptians as well as Rahab who sent those looking for the Hebrew spies on a wild goose chase. He also sent a lying spirit to King Saul. He sent Israel’s armies in to slay every man, woman, CHILD, live stock, and PET in the cities of Canaan. Further more he has sent and will send to hell every man, woman, and child who is not chosen by him, born again by His Holy Spirit, because he or she has been Redeemed by the Lord Jesus Christ. Many of these things strike us as hard, or at least hard to understand when God reveals himself as love. They remind us that he is also always holy and always demands unswerving justice.
These items from Scripture just to remind each of us that God is bigger than our puny minds and that his ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts. It would do us all well to remember that He is God and we are not.
For Jesus Glory,
Boyd
A few thoughts: I agree with Calvinists about the philosophical problems with free will, but I wonder if you can totally poke holes in it without also constraining God as well. After all, without some notion of freedom from necessity when agents make decisions, God is just as stuck as we are.
Also, the idea that God is no better by standing by than by causing evil is immediately plausible (and very, very often repeated in this discussion). And yes, both Calvinists and others appeal to God looking after the greater good. But a God who directly causes evil in pursuit of the greater good is a utilitarian God. This kind of God renders any discussion of God’s moral nature completely pointless. If God can override his moral nature in pursuit of the greater good, than it is that sense of the greater good that drives God’s actions, not God’s moral nature. If that greater good is God’s nature, than evil and good are both part of God’s nature.
So it would seem that either morality is something outside God (the greater good) or that God’s nature includes morality but that this morality includes both good and evil. Both of these positions have been rejected by traditional Christian theology.
On the other hand, if evil arises independently of God, God is permitted to respond to it in ways that bring good out of it. I really disagree that this is not at least a step in the right direction, even if it doesn’t solve all problems.
“The reality is that in order for God to stop every evil he would have to make us robots incapable of Love.”
If the second they were fired, God disintegrated all bullets he saw on a trajectory capable of hurting or killing someone, how would this make us “robots incapable of Love”? In fact, wouldn’t letting the bullets kill people decrease the number of people with free will to love?
Fish,
Human souls act according to the nature that God has given them, hence cannot act independently of the God who created them.
Matt 44:
Couldn’t God have brought about the eschaton without decreeing evil? I just don’t believe calvinists have a viable “greater good” argument.
my question is – what is the response of those who hold the calvin, helm, piper view that god’s will is always done – why did jesus suggest we pray that god’s will be done on earth as in heaven?
Jake @ #35 – Thank you! Obsession it is, and it has nothing to do with the practice of Christianity – with carrying out the work of the kingdom. Oh, and God is the author of evil? That’s just plain warped. I’m offended for God. God doesn’t cause evil, but he will use it for good – if we let him.
While taking the Calvinist view of the Sovereignty of God certainly poses some difficult problems, the more I study Scripture the more I’m persuaded it makes the best sense of how God is depicted.
“In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been chosen beforehand according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will…” (Ephesians 1:11)
“Does disaster come to a city, unless YHWH has done it?” (Amos 3:6b)
“So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills. You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’” (Romans 9:18-20)
(Not to mention the thrust of Job 38-41, arguing that God has purposes in even the most incomprehensible parts of Creation and that therefore we should be humble before Him.)
Texts like these just make it difficult for me to not see God as being in some sense “in control” of the Universe, disasters and evil included. I’m not saying I understand it, but it’s what I see throughout the arc of Scripture.
Dr. Olsen was my former professor and a friend. I’m now a Reformed pastor. When I read his analogy of a teacher withholding vital information to cause a student to fail a course so that the teacher could be glorified, I was saddened. Reformed theology has always taught two ways of salvation. The former is through obedience to the law. God has made this way of salvation known to everyone (Rom 1), and is therefore not withholding that information from anyone. The analogy is flawed.
Because of original sin, no one is able to be saved in this way, save Christ who was sinless and obeyed the law perfectly. Just because we cannot obey it (or perhaps better–will not obey it, making a distinction between natural and moral inability/depravity), it does not follow that the means is illegitimate or deceptive.
Since there is a way of salvation that everyone knows about and has the natural ability to achieve (though the moral inability because of sin), God is not obligated to give everyone or anyone the second way of salvation, through faith in Christ. That’s the whole reason Reformed Christians call it “grace.” It isn’t an obligation.
Sadly, many “Reformed” Christians do not even know their own heritage or have rebelled against it, and have themselves lost this vital law/gospel distinction, which is really the very heart of our system (another term for it is covenant theology). As has been said before, I tend to think many Arminians, and perhaps Dr. Olsen here, are reacting to something that is a bit of an historical aberration.