God is too big?

Daniel,

This issue of wether or not God is soveriegn over evil is not merely theolgical hairsplitting and an academic exercise It is grounded in how Christians can live throughout this evil age. Chick brought up another great illustration in the bible of God willing evil for His glory in te Joseph account. "You meant it for evil, but God for good" This theological truth that God is indeed completely sovereign even allowing evil is actually a comforting fact. Just recently two airplanes savagely, ripped through the worl trade centers killing thousands. How are we to respond to this evil? Is this evil onslaugt out of control, is Satan taking over?? should we be afraid? NO and why not? Because of God's soveriegnty. Because we now that all of the evil that takes place in this world can only come by the hand of God. Prime example, once again in the Bible, Job. Satan had to go through God to get to Job. See Arminiansm shrink and are horrified by the fact that yes God is in absolute control of everything, even evil. Whereas Calvinists can take heart in the fact that God is in control.

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: dfd2 ]

 

Daniel,

I answered your questions, now I'd appreciate it if you'd answer mine:

1. Is murder evil?
2. Was the murder of Jesus evil?
3. Did God will for Jesus to be murdered?
4. Did God will evil?

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: dfd2 ]

 

I have already posted this elsewhere, but in light of the discussion, its probably good to post it again.

***************************
Why I Do Not Say, “God Did Not Cause the Calamity, But He Can Use It for Good.”

September 19, 2001

John Piper

Many Christians are speaking this way about the murderous destruction of the World Trade Towers on September 11, 2001. God did not cause it, but he can use it for good. There are two reasons I do not say this. One is that it goes beyond, and is contrary to, what the Bible teaches. The other is that it undermines the very hope it wants to offer.

First, this statement goes beyond and against the Bible. For some, all they want to say, in denying that God "caused" the calamity, is that God is not a sinner and that God does not remove human accountability and that God is compassionate. That is true - and precious beyond words. But for others, and for most people who hear this slogan, something far more is implied. Namely, God, by his very nature, cannot or would not act to bring about such a calamity. This view of God is what contradicts the Bible and undercuts hope.

How God governs all events in the universe without sinning, and without removing responsibility from man, and with compassionate outcomes is mysterious indeed! But that is what the Bible teaches. God "works all things after the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11).

This "all things" includes the fall of sparrows (Matthew 10:29), the rolling of dice (Proverbs 16:33), the slaughter of his people (Psalm 44:11), the decisions of kings (Proverbs 21:1), the failing of sight (Exodus 4:11), the sickness of children (2 Samuel 12:15), the loss and gain of money (1 Samuel 2:7), the suffering of saints (1 Peter 4:19), the completion of travel plans (James 4:15), the persecution of Christians (Hebrews 12:4-7), the repentance of souls (2 Timothy 2:25), the gift of faith (Philippians 1:29), the pursuit of holiness (Philippians 3:12-13), the growth of believers (Hebrews 6:3), the giving of life and the taking in death (1 Samuel 2:6), and the crucifixion of his Son (Acts 4:27-28).

From the smallest thing to the greatest thing, good and evil, happy and sad, pagan and Christian, pain and pleasure - God governs them all for his wise and just and good purposes (Isaiah 46:10). Lest we miss the point, the Bible speaks most clearly to this in the most painful situations. Amos asks, in time of disaster, "If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?" (Amos 3:6). After losing all ten of his children in the collapse of his son's house, Job says, "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21). After being covered with boils he says, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10).

Oh, yes, Satan is real and active and involved in this world of woe! In fact Job 2:7 says, "Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head." Satan struck him. But Job did not get comfort from looking at secondary causes. He got comfort from looking at the ultimate cause. "Shall we not accept adversity from God?" And the author of the book agrees with Job when he says that Job's brothers and sisters "consoled him and comforted him for all the adversities that the LORD had brought on him" (Job 42:11). Then James underlines God's purposeful goodness in Job's misery: "You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord's dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful" (James 5:11). Job himself concludes in prayer: "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). Yes, Satan is real, and he is terrible - and he is on a leash.

The other reason I don't say, "God did not cause the calamity, but he can use it for good," is that it undercuts the very hope it wants to create. I ask those who say this: "If you deny that God could have 'used' a million prior events to save 5,000 people from this great evil, what hope then do you have that God could now 'use' this terrible event to save you in the hour of trial?" We say we believe he can use these events for good, but we deny that he could use the events of the past to hold back the evil of September 11. But the Bible teaches he could have restrained this evil (Genesis 20:6). "The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples" (Psalm 33:10). But it was not in his plan to do it. Let us beware. We spare God the burden of his sovereignty and lose our only hope.

All of us are sinners. We deserve to perish. Every breath we take is an undeserved gift. We have one great hope: that Jesus Christ died to obtain pardon and righteousness for us (Ephesians 1:7; 2 Corinthians 5:21), and that God will employ his all-conquering, sovereign grace to preserve us for our inheritance (Jeremiah 32:40). We surrender this hope if we sacrifice this sovereignty.

Strengthening Your Confidence in Christ Our King,

Pastor John

To receive John Piper's latest Fresh Words article via email subscription send a message to freshwords-subscribe@egroups.com.
To receive John Piper's latest sermon manuscript via email subscription send a message to pipersermons-subscribe@egroups.com.

© Bethlehem Baptist Church. You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that: (1) you credit the author, (2) any modifications are clearly marked, (3) you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, (4) you do not make more than 1,000 copies. (5) you include DGM's toll-free number (888/346-4700) and web site address (www.desiringGOD.org) on the copied resource. For placing this material on the web, a link to the document on DGM's web site is preferred. If your intended use is other than that outlined above, please contact Desiring God Ministries, 720 13th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55415. (612) 338-8611, mail@desiringGOD.org.
***********************************

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This issue of wether or not God is soveriegn over evil is not merely theolgical hairsplitting and an academic exercise It is grounded in how Christians can live throughout this evil age.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right. That is why I vehemently deny your absurd claim that god wills evil. Yours is an evil god.

 

Daniel.

I am puzzled as to why after I, calmly, answered your questions you seem to not want to answer mine? I have answered your questions and I'd appreciate it if you answer mine. Thank you.

 

Daniel,
I answered your questions, now I'd appreciate it if you'd answer mine:

1. Is murder evil?
2. Was the murder of Jesus evil?
3. Did God will for Jesus to be murdered?
4. Did God will evil?

 

The issue is not whether God wills that we suffer a litte in this world. Suffering, in itself, is not evil. The issue is whether God creates some men with the intent, desire and purpose of having them suffer eternal torment. Calvin (and some Calvinists, though not all) say yes. The bible says that the Father will all men to be saved.

 

Daniel,

I'm very puzzled as to why you are not showming me the same courtesy and respect I showed you by clearly answering my questions. I showed you courtesy by plainly answering each one of your questions. Id like it if you would show me the same courtesy. I'm not going to continue in any further discussion with you until you do so, thanks and always with love , Mark

 

Why are you so surprised? I never denied that God wills suffering. That's just a caricature. I deny that God creates people with the desire to make them suffer eternal torment. The bible says that God wills all men be saved. Calvin says that God will some men be damned.

Most Calvinists don't agree with Calvin, which is why, before the old man was even dead, his followers were changing his theology to bring it more in line with the biblical truth. Remember, Arminius was a great scholar and a committed Calvinist until he was chosen to combat anti-Calvin "heresies". He prepared himself for this task by carefully studying scripture, and, surprise surprise, realized that Calvin was wrong.

Didn't CT say in another thread that he was an infrlapsarian? This proves the point that some Calvinists simply do not agree with Calvin's "dreadful decree." I would venture to say most. Once we start throwing out bits and pieces of Calvin, it seems silly to argue that Arminians throw out too much while infralapsarians throw out just the right amount. I'm sure Arminians think infralapsarians throw out too little.

Arminius was chosen by the leading Calvinist powers of his day to combat anti-Calvinist teaching precisely because he was an honest man, a strong Calvinist, and an internationally recognized scholar. If I want to know what he thought, why would I read commentaries by someone whose credential are marginal at best, instead of going straight to the source?

How much suffering is a lot? Doesn't Paul say that it's all trivial compared to the glory of heaven?

 

Just a note: the debate between infra- and supralapsarians concerns the logical sequence or order of the decrees, not their temporal sequence. Both affirm that election preceeds the fall temporally, but the infralapsarian sees the logical sequence corresponding to revelation -- i.e., creation, fall, election, redemption. Thus, election is placed in a meaningful context. However, most Reformed thinkers today would probably agree with Dabney that this is a question that ought never to have been raised. It emerged from the Protestant scholastic period and, as John Frame suggests, is really a question of pedagogy being elevated to the level of doctrine. A better way to think about the decrees is the organic model that comes out of Dutch Reformed thinking -- I think it is Bavinck's, although Dabney was certainly there, too -- in which the decrees overlap in the mind of God. That is the extent of what we can know from Scripture.

I suppose the question that both Calvinist and Arminian have to answer is why salvation isn't universal. Saying that God wanted to save everyone, but only if they really wanted it, is really no "better" an answer than saying He saved who He wanted, but ultimately did not save everyone, in spite of His desire that none would perish. To the unredeemed, the God we posit in both cases is hateful -- all that differs is the reason: His discrimination or His impotence.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J. Mark Bertrand:

I suppose the question that both Calvinist and Arminian have to answer is why salvation isn't universal. Saying that God wanted to save everyone, but only if they really wanted it, is really no "better" an answer than saying He saved who He wanted, but ultimately did not save everyone, in spite of His desire that none would perish. To the unredeemed, the God we posit in both cases is hateful -- all that differs is the reason: His discrimination or His impotence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with your first paragraph - not your second.

God is holy and righteous and is never either wrong or sinful. He hates perfectly and loves perfectly. He never desired that none would perish - only none of the elect. One must be very careful interpreting universal terms in Scripture.

Isaiah 55:11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

 

Chris,

Good catch. I should have written "...in spite of His love for the world." I mixed up my anti-Calvinist proof texts.

In case my point in the second paragraph was ambiguous, let me explain. The Arminian is wrong if he believes that his view of soteriology is less objectionable to the unbeliever than the Calvinist's. Both are equally 'hateful' because both posit a God who has the power to save each and every person but, for whatever reason, does not. We admit that He discriminates and, not knowing why or according to what criteria, we can only defend the justice of His actions. The Arminian denies that He discriminates, saying He *wants* to save everyone, and He could in fact save everyone, but He only wants to save people who really want it. Either God discriminates for His glory or out of some (in light of His power, bizarre) scruple, but to the unbeliever He is still unjust.

The point of this is that we should not adapt our view of God to make Him less objectionable to people who will only be satisfied with universal, unconditional salvation.

Thanks again for the catch....

Mark

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J. Mark Bertrand:
Chris,

Good catch. I should have written "...in spite of His love for the world." I mixed up my anti-Calvinist proof texts.

In case my point in the second paragraph was ambiguous, let me explain. The Arminian is wrong if he believes that his view of soteriology is less objectionable to the unbeliever than the Calvinist's. Both are equally 'hateful' because both posit a God who has the power to save each and every person but, for whatever reason, does not. We admit that He discriminates and, not knowing why or according to what criteria, we can only defend the justice of His actions. The Arminian denies that He discriminates, saying He *wants* to save everyone, and He could in fact save everyone, but He only wants to save people who really want it. Either God discriminates for His glory or out of some (in light of His power, bizarre) scruple, but to the unbeliever He is still unjust.

The point of this is that we should not adapt our view of God to make Him less objectionable to people who will only be satisfied with universal, unconditional salvation.

Thanks again for the catch....

Mark<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed ... well said