One of the biggest challenges for atheism is the origin of good, that is, if we all got here by the strong eating the weak in evolution, then why do we cry out when we see the strong eating the weak in society? If we accept Dawkins’ self gene theory, then when we see injustice and the oppression of those who aren’t in our family, a consistent atheist should just shrug their shoulders and recognise it as the survival of fittest. But we don’t. People have an inherent sense of right and wrong and we cry out against injustice and oppression, why? Atheism has no basis or explanation for the origin of a good conscience.
This is because science deliberately restricts itself to the objective. Science doesn’t talk about opinion or speculation, only cold hard facts. Ethics on the other hand, is subjective and open to debate. You can’t put right and wrong in a test tube and produce a scientific proof about what someone should do, scientific proofs are limited to what someone can do. This was famously observed by Hume’s Naturalistic fallacy which states that you cannot get an ought from an is, that is, scientific facts can never give you a basis for what people should or shouldn’t do. You can never get an imperative from an indicative.
Sam Harris has challenged this in his book The Moral Landscape. Harris claims that science can give you a basis for ethics because “well being” (his goal for ethics) is something that can be observed and improved by science. However this fails at a crucial point – the subjectivity of well being – what happens when people disagree about someone’s or some group’s best interests? How does science solve a disagreement about one’s well being? Harris writes off the naturalistic fallacy as a trick of language without actually dealing with it as an argument, he simply claims that “well being” is obvious and objective and then steamrolls his western idea of well being over eastern values about women and children.
After Harris promotes utilitarianism based on “common sense” while pretending it’s based on science, he hides this double standard in a medical analogy. If “good health” is hard to define but can be improved by science, then so can “well being”. Unfortunately for Harris, what you should do for “good health” is just as subjective and what you should do for “well being”. Scientific advances in medicine can tell you what you can do to save or to kill, but not whether you should save or kill. Science is completely silent on the issue of euthanasia, it can tell you how to kill someone, but not whether you should.
Hume’s naturalistic fallacy and Harris’ challenge of it is actually historically verifiable. If you can think of a single instance in history where science has changed human morality then Harris is right, if not, Hume is right. This doesn’t include areas of morality that science has opened up e.g. bioethics, but situations where people used to believe that A was right or B was wrong, and then a scientific discovery has proved that A was wrong or B was right. It has to be a scientific discovery that settles an ethical debate. I can’t think of a single one but Harris claims that science should be able to settle them all.
If there is no God and therefore no outside third party to dictate right and wrong, then our idea’s of right and wrong are nothing more than our ideas. Who am I to tell a con artist that what they are doing is wrong? If a group of pedophiles could somehow convinced the majority of a country’s population that pedophilia was ok then they would have no choice but to legalise it. Our rationality can function as a justification for our ethics, but it can never be an objective basis for ethics. We can rationalise our ethical decisions, but our rationality will never rebuke our morality, and neither will science.
This is more than just an argument for the attractiveness of faith, it’s an argument for its truthfulness because of our inherent sense of right and wrong. Why do we cry out against injustice? Why do we care when the weak are oppressed? Atheism has no basis or explanation for our morality, Dawkins’ selfish gene theory contradicts the evidence of our selfless concern for the marginalised. Atheism simply cannot account for the origin of the good in our morality.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
The Origin of Evil
One of the corollaries of “the problem of evil” is its origin. If God created everything good (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) and together it was very good (Gen 1:31), then how does one account for the presence (and prevalence) of evil? This presents a major issue for the Christian theology of creation, if God created everything, then who created evil?
In an attempt to protect God’s sovereignty, some have suggested that God created evil in the short term to bring about ultimate good in the long term, expanding on Romans 5:20 – “the law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more”. But only two chapters later, Paul defends the inherent goodness of the law – “so then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). God’s will expressed in the law shows us how bad we are, it is not the source of our rebellion.
Realising that we can’t hide behind the law, some have even tried to hide behind God himself as the ultimate cause of evil. Calvin translates Isaiah 45:7 as – “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things” (Calvin, Institutes I.17.viii). The trouble is that the word translated evil here, can equally mean “distress”, moreover, distress is to peace as darkness is to light – translating “distress” preserves the obvious parallelism. Unlike creating evil, creating trials and suffering for God’s good purposes is supported by the rest of the Bible (Genesis 50:20, Job 1-2, Romans 5:3-5, 1 Peter 1:6-7).
The danger in attributing the creation of evil to God, is that one can easily conclude that if God creates evil, then God himself is evil. The law of works states that a person’s (or being’s) character is inseparable from what they do, if what they are doing is evil then they cannot be wholly good and vice versa. This is even made known in popular culture in the movie Batman begins – “It’s not who I am underneath, but what I do, that defines me.” If God is the ultimate author of evil then he himself must be partly or at least at certain times, evil (i.e. when he’s creating evil).
So then who created evil? There is a problem inherent in the question, for evil is not something that’s created, it’s something that’s chosen. God didn’t create disobedience, it’s something that originated in the human heart (Gen 3:6). God created people with the ability to choose good and evil (Gen 2:16-17), but we are the ones who chose, God did not force our hand. Evil is created by our desires (James 1:15). Contrary to what Buddhism teaches, our desires cannot and should not be completely eliminated. Some of our desires are inherently good desires – for relationship, for well being, for the enjoyment of creation – but sin twists our good desires so that they give birth to evil, e.g. a desire for well being (self-interest) can lead us to step on other people to get what we want (selfishness).
Once we stop desiring the one who gives us all good things and set our desires on the things themselves, they become idols, and we become ungrateful children who spend our efforts trying to get more from our parents rather than making the most of our relationship with our parents. Such a child can hardly blame their parents for the ingratitude and greed that they themselves chose. Though most of us think that we’re good, this is the reality of our relationship with God, the very thing that we were created for.
The world is not inherently evil, but ever since the fall, the human heart has been. This is not to say that people are as evil as they can possibly be, but that we cannot draw a line and say “We’re the good and they’re the bad”, for the line between good and evil runs through every single human heart. Christians don’t (or at least shouldn’t) claim to be good people, but bad people that know that they’re bad. When G.K. Chesterton was asked “What’s wrong with the world?” He replied “Dear sirs, I am”. Christians believe that we are the authors of evil and God is the author of good. The line isn’t between the good and the bad, but between those who are humble enough to accept God’s forgiveness and those who are too proud to be saved by anyone other than themselves.
In an attempt to protect God’s sovereignty, some have suggested that God created evil in the short term to bring about ultimate good in the long term, expanding on Romans 5:20 – “the law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more”. But only two chapters later, Paul defends the inherent goodness of the law – “so then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). God’s will expressed in the law shows us how bad we are, it is not the source of our rebellion.
Realising that we can’t hide behind the law, some have even tried to hide behind God himself as the ultimate cause of evil. Calvin translates Isaiah 45:7 as – “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things” (Calvin, Institutes I.17.viii). The trouble is that the word translated evil here, can equally mean “distress”, moreover, distress is to peace as darkness is to light – translating “distress” preserves the obvious parallelism. Unlike creating evil, creating trials and suffering for God’s good purposes is supported by the rest of the Bible (Genesis 50:20, Job 1-2, Romans 5:3-5, 1 Peter 1:6-7).
The danger in attributing the creation of evil to God, is that one can easily conclude that if God creates evil, then God himself is evil. The law of works states that a person’s (or being’s) character is inseparable from what they do, if what they are doing is evil then they cannot be wholly good and vice versa. This is even made known in popular culture in the movie Batman begins – “It’s not who I am underneath, but what I do, that defines me.” If God is the ultimate author of evil then he himself must be partly or at least at certain times, evil (i.e. when he’s creating evil).
So then who created evil? There is a problem inherent in the question, for evil is not something that’s created, it’s something that’s chosen. God didn’t create disobedience, it’s something that originated in the human heart (Gen 3:6). God created people with the ability to choose good and evil (Gen 2:16-17), but we are the ones who chose, God did not force our hand. Evil is created by our desires (James 1:15). Contrary to what Buddhism teaches, our desires cannot and should not be completely eliminated. Some of our desires are inherently good desires – for relationship, for well being, for the enjoyment of creation – but sin twists our good desires so that they give birth to evil, e.g. a desire for well being (self-interest) can lead us to step on other people to get what we want (selfishness).
Once we stop desiring the one who gives us all good things and set our desires on the things themselves, they become idols, and we become ungrateful children who spend our efforts trying to get more from our parents rather than making the most of our relationship with our parents. Such a child can hardly blame their parents for the ingratitude and greed that they themselves chose. Though most of us think that we’re good, this is the reality of our relationship with God, the very thing that we were created for.
The world is not inherently evil, but ever since the fall, the human heart has been. This is not to say that people are as evil as they can possibly be, but that we cannot draw a line and say “We’re the good and they’re the bad”, for the line between good and evil runs through every single human heart. Christians don’t (or at least shouldn’t) claim to be good people, but bad people that know that they’re bad. When G.K. Chesterton was asked “What’s wrong with the world?” He replied “Dear sirs, I am”. Christians believe that we are the authors of evil and God is the author of good. The line isn’t between the good and the bad, but between those who are humble enough to accept God’s forgiveness and those who are too proud to be saved by anyone other than themselves.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Theological Aspect
While the Bible describes God as sovereign over everything that happens (Ephesians 1:11) and people as responsible for the choices they make (Romans 2:6), it makes no apologies for any perceived contradictions and offers no explanations of how these two truths hold together. They are essentially seen as different sides of the same coin, or better, the same events from different perspectives, that is, from different theological aspects.
In linguistics, the verbal aspect of an action performed is of great significance. A bird’s eye view of an action as a whole is called perfective aspect, and the street view of an action unfolding around the viewer is called imperfective aspect. This is the kind of difference that we see in the way that the Bible describes events in human history, with the hindsight of a bird’s eye view God’s sovereignty is clearly seen (Job 42:9-17), but from the perspective of those involved in the events as they happen, people are responsible for the choices they make (Job 42:1-8).
Therefore, from our perspective there is real evil that its perpetrators are held accountable for, a real imperative to repent and believe the gospel, and real warnings to heed against falling away. But from the perspective of God’s sovereignty (which we only catch glimpses of in his word), there is no such thing as evil (for God works all things ultimately for good), unconditional election (predestination), and irresistible grace resulting in the perseverance of the saints. From heaven we see that all of our days are written in the book of life (Psalm 139:16), but from earth we know that we are still writing our history.
Points of tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are often derived from a confusion of theological aspect. If we paint the glimpses that we have of God’s perspective over the reality that we see on the ground, there are bound to be some discrepancies. When we try to force God’s absolute sovereignty (from his perspective) onto our experience of evil (from our perspective), we create the problem of evil – how can God be good and sovereign over evil? However this is like reading an imperfective action (evil) as having perfective aspect. As stated above, from the perspective of God’s sovereignty, there is no such thing as evil – all things are achieving their created purpose and will result in God’s glory (Romans 9:17).
From the ground however, evil is very real and those who do evil must be held responsible for it. Reading God’s sovereignty into this imperfective aspect often results in vain attempts to blame God for our sin. He is sovereign over it, but we are the perpetrators of it. We are the authors of our sin, but God is the author of his grace which uses, restrains and triumphs over our sin. Christians therefore live knowing that we are responsible, and pray knowing that God is sovereign. Both perspectives are needed for a complete picture, but when you put them side by side they are clearly different perspectives.
Some scientific illustrations may help. According to Einstein, if you could travel away from a clock faster than the speed of light, you would be overtaking the light reflected from the clock and so you would see the clock ticking backwards. From the perspective of the stationary clock you would be travelling back in time, but from the perspective of your wrist watch you would be travelling forward through time as normal. From the perspective of someone else on earth I may be standing still, but from space I’m spinning around the world at 10,000 kph and from outside the solar system I’m rotating around the sun at 100,000 kph.
Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. The truth from a bird’s eye view is different from but complementary to the truth from the perspective on the ground. Tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility arises when we confuse the theological aspects of human history from God’s perfective aspect and our imperfective aspect. Now we see in part, but it’s only from the perspective of the end that one can see the whole.
In linguistics, the verbal aspect of an action performed is of great significance. A bird’s eye view of an action as a whole is called perfective aspect, and the street view of an action unfolding around the viewer is called imperfective aspect. This is the kind of difference that we see in the way that the Bible describes events in human history, with the hindsight of a bird’s eye view God’s sovereignty is clearly seen (Job 42:9-17), but from the perspective of those involved in the events as they happen, people are responsible for the choices they make (Job 42:1-8).
Therefore, from our perspective there is real evil that its perpetrators are held accountable for, a real imperative to repent and believe the gospel, and real warnings to heed against falling away. But from the perspective of God’s sovereignty (which we only catch glimpses of in his word), there is no such thing as evil (for God works all things ultimately for good), unconditional election (predestination), and irresistible grace resulting in the perseverance of the saints. From heaven we see that all of our days are written in the book of life (Psalm 139:16), but from earth we know that we are still writing our history.
Points of tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are often derived from a confusion of theological aspect. If we paint the glimpses that we have of God’s perspective over the reality that we see on the ground, there are bound to be some discrepancies. When we try to force God’s absolute sovereignty (from his perspective) onto our experience of evil (from our perspective), we create the problem of evil – how can God be good and sovereign over evil? However this is like reading an imperfective action (evil) as having perfective aspect. As stated above, from the perspective of God’s sovereignty, there is no such thing as evil – all things are achieving their created purpose and will result in God’s glory (Romans 9:17).
From the ground however, evil is very real and those who do evil must be held responsible for it. Reading God’s sovereignty into this imperfective aspect often results in vain attempts to blame God for our sin. He is sovereign over it, but we are the perpetrators of it. We are the authors of our sin, but God is the author of his grace which uses, restrains and triumphs over our sin. Christians therefore live knowing that we are responsible, and pray knowing that God is sovereign. Both perspectives are needed for a complete picture, but when you put them side by side they are clearly different perspectives.
Some scientific illustrations may help. According to Einstein, if you could travel away from a clock faster than the speed of light, you would be overtaking the light reflected from the clock and so you would see the clock ticking backwards. From the perspective of the stationary clock you would be travelling back in time, but from the perspective of your wrist watch you would be travelling forward through time as normal. From the perspective of someone else on earth I may be standing still, but from space I’m spinning around the world at 10,000 kph and from outside the solar system I’m rotating around the sun at 100,000 kph.
Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. The truth from a bird’s eye view is different from but complementary to the truth from the perspective on the ground. Tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility arises when we confuse the theological aspects of human history from God’s perfective aspect and our imperfective aspect. Now we see in part, but it’s only from the perspective of the end that one can see the whole.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
God's Sovereignty and Our Will
One of the distinctions that has been used to understand and explain the tension between God’s sovereign will and our will is the distinction between what is necessary and what is voluntary. From the perspective of God’s sovereign will, human rebellion is necessary: “They stumble because they disobey the message – which is also what they were destined for.” (1 Peter 2:8), but from the perspective of our will, human rebellion is a free choice that we all make: “Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:19).
Don Carson explains this with an analogy: “A man may be locked in a room, but not want to get out. He therefore cannot get out, but equally he does not want to get out.” (Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, page 207). While this helpfully illustrates the necessity of the lock and the voluntariness of his will, it still pits the two against each other. The implied question remains, is he locked in or has he locked himself in? There is still a tension between God’s sovereign will and human will.
However, I propose that the tension is between human will and God’s moral will (the imperatives of the bible), not God’s sovereign will (everything that happens), that is, we rebel against God’s will for us to be selfless (loving God and our neighbour), not against his will for us to learn the consequences of selfishness the hard way. To push the analogy, God created us knowing which room we would chose, and he graciously leads some people out into his room, but there is no lock. God doesn’t force peoples to sin, but he does hand people over to their sin. Predestination doesn’t mean that God is stopping people who want to become Christians from becoming Christians, because no one actually wants to become a Christian, left to ourselves, we all chose ourselves over God.
While this may sound like I’m simply pushing the tension into God’s complex will, it’s not quite that simple. Because God is omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) he can actually use evil to achieve good, that is, God can use peoples rejection of his moral will, to ultimately achieve his moral will inside his sovereign will. The classic example is that of Jacob, where his brothers rebel against God’s moral will and harm Jacob, but God uses that event to prevent the harm of many in his sovereign will (Genesis 50:20). The ultimate is example is that of the cross, where God uses the greatest act of evil by humans to achieve the greatest good for humanity (Acts 2:23). Whether we listen to his will in the bible or learn it the hard way, it always part of God’s master plan, our will may be for or against God’s will, but never instead of God’s will.
This may also sound like God is just an awesome chess player, constantly responding to situations that we create, but God uses our acts of evil for good by his “set purpose and foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23). God’s sovereign will transcends our will such that there is no dichotomy between them. The realities of God’s sovereign will and our will is not either/or, it’s both/and. God created humanity knowing that they would chose to sin and so he planned and purposed for Jesus to come to save us, but he did not force Adam’s hand. God allows us to be tempted (1 Corinthians 10:13), but he himself does not tempt anyone (James 1:13).
After the fall Adam’s first thought was to blame the circumstances (Genesis 3:12), but we are all responsible for the choices we make. “No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13). God gives us every opportunity to see the rooms (or slaveries – Romans 6) of sin and righteousness for what they are, and gives us our life to chose which we will live in for eternity.
Don Carson explains this with an analogy: “A man may be locked in a room, but not want to get out. He therefore cannot get out, but equally he does not want to get out.” (Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, page 207). While this helpfully illustrates the necessity of the lock and the voluntariness of his will, it still pits the two against each other. The implied question remains, is he locked in or has he locked himself in? There is still a tension between God’s sovereign will and human will.
However, I propose that the tension is between human will and God’s moral will (the imperatives of the bible), not God’s sovereign will (everything that happens), that is, we rebel against God’s will for us to be selfless (loving God and our neighbour), not against his will for us to learn the consequences of selfishness the hard way. To push the analogy, God created us knowing which room we would chose, and he graciously leads some people out into his room, but there is no lock. God doesn’t force peoples to sin, but he does hand people over to their sin. Predestination doesn’t mean that God is stopping people who want to become Christians from becoming Christians, because no one actually wants to become a Christian, left to ourselves, we all chose ourselves over God.
While this may sound like I’m simply pushing the tension into God’s complex will, it’s not quite that simple. Because God is omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (all powerful) he can actually use evil to achieve good, that is, God can use peoples rejection of his moral will, to ultimately achieve his moral will inside his sovereign will. The classic example is that of Jacob, where his brothers rebel against God’s moral will and harm Jacob, but God uses that event to prevent the harm of many in his sovereign will (Genesis 50:20). The ultimate is example is that of the cross, where God uses the greatest act of evil by humans to achieve the greatest good for humanity (Acts 2:23). Whether we listen to his will in the bible or learn it the hard way, it always part of God’s master plan, our will may be for or against God’s will, but never instead of God’s will.
This may also sound like God is just an awesome chess player, constantly responding to situations that we create, but God uses our acts of evil for good by his “set purpose and foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23). God’s sovereign will transcends our will such that there is no dichotomy between them. The realities of God’s sovereign will and our will is not either/or, it’s both/and. God created humanity knowing that they would chose to sin and so he planned and purposed for Jesus to come to save us, but he did not force Adam’s hand. God allows us to be tempted (1 Corinthians 10:13), but he himself does not tempt anyone (James 1:13).
After the fall Adam’s first thought was to blame the circumstances (Genesis 3:12), but we are all responsible for the choices we make. “No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13). God gives us every opportunity to see the rooms (or slaveries – Romans 6) of sin and righteousness for what they are, and gives us our life to chose which we will live in for eternity.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
God's Dual Will
The perceived tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility can be reconciled by understanding the dual will of God. Christians believe that God has a sovereign (or transcendent) will which is basically everything that happens (Acts 18:21, Rom 1:10, 9:19, 15:32, 1 Pet 3:17, 4:19) and a moral (or immanent) will which is to obey God (Mark 3:25, John 7:17, Rom 12:2, 1 Thess 4:3, 5:18). These dual wills are not in opposition to each other, if you think of God’s sovereign will and his moral will as overlapping circles then the overlap is when we obey and the area of God’s sovereign will not overlapping with God’s moral will is when we sin. The area of God’s moral will not overlapping with his sovereign will are a missed opportunities to obey and the area outside both circles are missed opportunities to sin.
If you can hold these two together, you can hold God’s sovereignty together with human responsibility. For God is sovereign in his sovereign will, there is nothing that happens outside of it. And people are responsible in God’s moral will, our decisions and actions have real consequences. In this paradigm, human will (or free will if there is such a thing) is in the same dimension as God’s moral will. Our will can be in line with God’s will as revealed in the Bible, or opposed to it in a tug of wills. God’s sovereign will is seen in a different dimension, transcendent to his moral will and human wills alike. For linguists, his sovereign will is like the perfective aspect (bird’s eye view) of his will and his moral will like the imperfective aspect (street view) of his will.
Another way of seeing it is that the various parts of God’s moral will make up the whole of his sovereign will. So that when something happens in line with his moral will (like doing good – 1 Pet 2:15), it’s part of his sovereign will (Eph 2:10), but even when something happens in opposition to his moral will (like injustice – 1 Pet 3:17), it’s part of his sovereign will, ultimately for good (Rom 8:28). This is where it gets a bit tricky, for we know God’s moral will for the future but not his sovereign will for the future. And so people are responsible for the evil they commit, even though it’s not outside God’s sovereign will i.e. God uses our evil actions to achieve his good purpose (Gen 50:20, Acts 2:23).
Unfortunately we can never see God’s sovereign will beyond the present unless he reveals it to us (we can’t see the bird’s eye view of the street because we’re on the street). I think this is the heart of the perceived tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility (as it was for Job). It’s only with hindsight that we can see how God used events that are contrary to his moral will to actually achieve his sovereign will which is good (in some cases, that hindsight might not come until we’re in heaven). Until then we’re called to trust that God is powerful (in control of everything) and good (in everything that happens).
The problem of evil then is only a problem for those who demand hindsight in the present. Predestination is only an issue if God’s will doesn’t have a sovereign dimension as well as a dimension that we interact with. Free will only undermines God’s will if his sovereign will is seen to be exactly the same as his moral will, i.e. only if God’s will is one dimensional. The duality of God’s will is something that Christians have believed for centuries, and it’s the key to understanding one of the most difficult theological concepts – God’s sovereign benevolence. In this way, God’s sovereignty and goodness are seen as two sides of the same coin, his plan as two dimensions of the same will. Your will is free to be for or against God’s (moral) will, but never instead of God’s (sovereign) will, for he uses our morality in his sovereignty, i.e. he uses our will to achieve his.
If you can hold these two together, you can hold God’s sovereignty together with human responsibility. For God is sovereign in his sovereign will, there is nothing that happens outside of it. And people are responsible in God’s moral will, our decisions and actions have real consequences. In this paradigm, human will (or free will if there is such a thing) is in the same dimension as God’s moral will. Our will can be in line with God’s will as revealed in the Bible, or opposed to it in a tug of wills. God’s sovereign will is seen in a different dimension, transcendent to his moral will and human wills alike. For linguists, his sovereign will is like the perfective aspect (bird’s eye view) of his will and his moral will like the imperfective aspect (street view) of his will.
Another way of seeing it is that the various parts of God’s moral will make up the whole of his sovereign will. So that when something happens in line with his moral will (like doing good – 1 Pet 2:15), it’s part of his sovereign will (Eph 2:10), but even when something happens in opposition to his moral will (like injustice – 1 Pet 3:17), it’s part of his sovereign will, ultimately for good (Rom 8:28). This is where it gets a bit tricky, for we know God’s moral will for the future but not his sovereign will for the future. And so people are responsible for the evil they commit, even though it’s not outside God’s sovereign will i.e. God uses our evil actions to achieve his good purpose (Gen 50:20, Acts 2:23).
Unfortunately we can never see God’s sovereign will beyond the present unless he reveals it to us (we can’t see the bird’s eye view of the street because we’re on the street). I think this is the heart of the perceived tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility (as it was for Job). It’s only with hindsight that we can see how God used events that are contrary to his moral will to actually achieve his sovereign will which is good (in some cases, that hindsight might not come until we’re in heaven). Until then we’re called to trust that God is powerful (in control of everything) and good (in everything that happens).
The problem of evil then is only a problem for those who demand hindsight in the present. Predestination is only an issue if God’s will doesn’t have a sovereign dimension as well as a dimension that we interact with. Free will only undermines God’s will if his sovereign will is seen to be exactly the same as his moral will, i.e. only if God’s will is one dimensional. The duality of God’s will is something that Christians have believed for centuries, and it’s the key to understanding one of the most difficult theological concepts – God’s sovereign benevolence. In this way, God’s sovereignty and goodness are seen as two sides of the same coin, his plan as two dimensions of the same will. Your will is free to be for or against God’s (moral) will, but never instead of God’s (sovereign) will, for he uses our morality in his sovereignty, i.e. he uses our will to achieve his.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
On Perseverance
Another perceived tension that often boils down to the one between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is that of assurance and perseverance. There are several passages in the bible that assure Christians that once they are saved, they cannot be unsaved (John 10:28; Romans 8:38-39; Philippians 1:6) but there are also very real warnings in the Bible not to fall away (John 15:6; Philippians 2:12; Hebrews 4:11). Which is it? Is a Christian’s salvation guaranteed by God or is it up to us to persevere as Christians?
Again the question draws a false dichotomy between the will of a Christian and the will of God. Whether or not your will is aligned with God’s will or not, it never acts instead of God’s will. It is God who keeps us, but the way he keeps us is by our own volition. If you think of God’s salvation as being placed on top of a building and falling away as jumping off, then God doesn’t need to build a giant fence around the roof to keep Christians from jumping off, he simply shows them how far down the drop would be.
Those without the Holy Spirit will always want to push the boundaries, this is why the Old Testament law was spelled out in such great detail. But once someone has received the Holy Spirit they are changed inwardly so that they will not want to jump off of God’s salvation or push the boundaries of God’s law. In fact, the boundaries don’t need to be spelt out in such great detail if the person is changed so that they stay in the centre of God’s moral will, that is, if they are changed to love God and love others, they will not go near the boundaries (which may look different in different cultures and situations).
One of the few errors the puritans made was to look to themselves instead of to Christ, to discern whether they were Christians. They knew that Christians are saved by faith alone but faith is never alone, so they went looking for the deeds that accompany faith in order to gain assurance of salvation. But this is effectively putting faith in faith, that is, they were trusting in whether or not they had faith rather than trusting in Christ alone. To be assured that God has you, you need to look at God who is faithful, rather than yourself who may not always be faithful, even though you’ve been given the faith which enables you to be. For every look at yourself, take ten looks at your saviour.
In the parable of the four soils (Matthew 13:1-23 // Mark 4:1-20 // Luke 81:15) Jesus warns us not to be the first soil who rejects God’s word or the second soil who falls away. Just as God is sovereign in whom he chooses, he is sovereign in his choice coming to fruition. In both cases we are not encouraged to be passive, but to actively grow as the seed sown in the good soil. God graciously uses us to bring about his kingdom in ourselves as well as in the world, but if Christians could fall away then salvation would rest on our commitment to God rather than his commitment to us. Christians are chosen by grace, and if by grace then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace (Romans 11:5-6).
Again the question draws a false dichotomy between the will of a Christian and the will of God. Whether or not your will is aligned with God’s will or not, it never acts instead of God’s will. It is God who keeps us, but the way he keeps us is by our own volition. If you think of God’s salvation as being placed on top of a building and falling away as jumping off, then God doesn’t need to build a giant fence around the roof to keep Christians from jumping off, he simply shows them how far down the drop would be.
Those without the Holy Spirit will always want to push the boundaries, this is why the Old Testament law was spelled out in such great detail. But once someone has received the Holy Spirit they are changed inwardly so that they will not want to jump off of God’s salvation or push the boundaries of God’s law. In fact, the boundaries don’t need to be spelt out in such great detail if the person is changed so that they stay in the centre of God’s moral will, that is, if they are changed to love God and love others, they will not go near the boundaries (which may look different in different cultures and situations).
One of the few errors the puritans made was to look to themselves instead of to Christ, to discern whether they were Christians. They knew that Christians are saved by faith alone but faith is never alone, so they went looking for the deeds that accompany faith in order to gain assurance of salvation. But this is effectively putting faith in faith, that is, they were trusting in whether or not they had faith rather than trusting in Christ alone. To be assured that God has you, you need to look at God who is faithful, rather than yourself who may not always be faithful, even though you’ve been given the faith which enables you to be. For every look at yourself, take ten looks at your saviour.
In the parable of the four soils (Matthew 13:1-23 // Mark 4:1-20 // Luke 81:15) Jesus warns us not to be the first soil who rejects God’s word or the second soil who falls away. Just as God is sovereign in whom he chooses, he is sovereign in his choice coming to fruition. In both cases we are not encouraged to be passive, but to actively grow as the seed sown in the good soil. God graciously uses us to bring about his kingdom in ourselves as well as in the world, but if Christians could fall away then salvation would rest on our commitment to God rather than his commitment to us. Christians are chosen by grace, and if by grace then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace (Romans 11:5-6).
Monday, June 27, 2011
On Predestination
The perceived tension between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility is particularly felt in the doctrine of predestination (that God has chosen his people for heaven). If God has elected his chosen people ahead of time, then what’s the point in praying for them and encouraging them to become Christians? Moreover, if predestination implies double predestination (that has destined some for heaven and some for hell), then there’s nothing that the non-elect can do, they were doomed before they were born, and so how can God be fair if he doesn’t give them a chance.
This objection misunderstands sin and the first objection misunderstands grace. Double predestination is biblical (Romans 9:18), but it often carries a false assumption that people would otherwise be neutral before God and he moves some up to heaven and some down to hell. The reality is that we moved ourselves down to hell, if anything is undeserved, it’s that God moves some up to heaven. Left to our own devices no one would choose God, we all had our chance in Adam. Just as I came to Australia in my ancestor, so I came to idolatry in Adam. If you’re going to resent Adam for his original sin then you have to ask yourself, where did you get your life from?
Using predestination as an excuse not to pray for people and encourage them to become Christians is often referred to as hyper Calvinism. The false assumption behind this is that either God brings people to Christ or people bring people to Christ. But God has graciously involved us in his redemptive work, God brings people to Christ by the prayers and evangelism of other people. This is evident in the epilogue of Job, God is angry with Job’s friends and he says ‘my servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer’ (Job 42:8). Did Job’s prayer make a difference or was God sovereign over his grace? The question draws a false dichotomy, God was sovereign over his grace in Job’s prayer making a difference.
The difference is one of primary and secondary means. God is the ultimate cause of everything because he created the universe and is sovereign over it, but how he brings things into being is another question, one which often involves the human will. Our will may be for God’s will or against God’s will, but never instead of God’s will. God uses our choices and actions, whether they be good or bad, to achieve his good and perfect will. The answer to why someone had become a Christian is always grace (and why someone hasn’t is always sin), but how that person became a Christian is a different question entirely. The ultimate answer of why any given thing has happened or will happen is either our sin or God’s grace, but from a human perspective we’re often more interested in the secondary means rather than the primary, that is, we’re more interested in the how than the why.
Predestination is often seen as a doctrine that doesn’t really matter. It’s philosophical and complicated and since we’re not saved by our understanding of predestination then why does it matter? After all, isn’t it possible to be wrong about predestination and still be saved? Like a number of difficult doctrines, it’s certainly possible to saved without understanding them fully, but if you do fully understand predestination and reject it, you are effectively rejecting God’s grace. If the ultimate cause of your salvation is anything other than God’s mercy, then you are relying on your works (often in a decision) rather than Christ’s work on the cross. Putting your hope and identity in anything except God is the very definition of sin, but someone who puts it in Jesus is the definition of a Christian.
This objection misunderstands sin and the first objection misunderstands grace. Double predestination is biblical (Romans 9:18), but it often carries a false assumption that people would otherwise be neutral before God and he moves some up to heaven and some down to hell. The reality is that we moved ourselves down to hell, if anything is undeserved, it’s that God moves some up to heaven. Left to our own devices no one would choose God, we all had our chance in Adam. Just as I came to Australia in my ancestor, so I came to idolatry in Adam. If you’re going to resent Adam for his original sin then you have to ask yourself, where did you get your life from?
Using predestination as an excuse not to pray for people and encourage them to become Christians is often referred to as hyper Calvinism. The false assumption behind this is that either God brings people to Christ or people bring people to Christ. But God has graciously involved us in his redemptive work, God brings people to Christ by the prayers and evangelism of other people. This is evident in the epilogue of Job, God is angry with Job’s friends and he says ‘my servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer’ (Job 42:8). Did Job’s prayer make a difference or was God sovereign over his grace? The question draws a false dichotomy, God was sovereign over his grace in Job’s prayer making a difference.
The difference is one of primary and secondary means. God is the ultimate cause of everything because he created the universe and is sovereign over it, but how he brings things into being is another question, one which often involves the human will. Our will may be for God’s will or against God’s will, but never instead of God’s will. God uses our choices and actions, whether they be good or bad, to achieve his good and perfect will. The answer to why someone had become a Christian is always grace (and why someone hasn’t is always sin), but how that person became a Christian is a different question entirely. The ultimate answer of why any given thing has happened or will happen is either our sin or God’s grace, but from a human perspective we’re often more interested in the secondary means rather than the primary, that is, we’re more interested in the how than the why.
Predestination is often seen as a doctrine that doesn’t really matter. It’s philosophical and complicated and since we’re not saved by our understanding of predestination then why does it matter? After all, isn’t it possible to be wrong about predestination and still be saved? Like a number of difficult doctrines, it’s certainly possible to saved without understanding them fully, but if you do fully understand predestination and reject it, you are effectively rejecting God’s grace. If the ultimate cause of your salvation is anything other than God’s mercy, then you are relying on your works (often in a decision) rather than Christ’s work on the cross. Putting your hope and identity in anything except God is the very definition of sin, but someone who puts it in Jesus is the definition of a Christian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)