The debate was between John Piper and Arminian Perspectives over the implications of Genesis 50: 20. The debate is how the selling of Joseph as a slave, by his brothers, and ending up in Egypt as a slave, was both intended for evil by Joseph's brothers and yet intended for good by God.
The Arminian perspective on the event (Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers) is given in these words:
"This only means that throughout the whole process, God was working ultimate good out of their actions that they intended for evil."
Well, both Arminians and Calvinists can agree on that; And, if we left it at simply saying that, we perhaps would be better off, in most circumstances any way. But, we want to know more about the details as to how the sin of selling Joseph into slavery was both the intention of the evil committing brothers and the intention of Lord God. Still, leaving it with just that statement raises many questions in our minds.
1) How can God insure that good will come from the sin of the brothers if he does not control the choices and doings of his human creatures? To read the story of Joseph's later experiences in Egypt show that the whole story had been foreseen of the Lord and thus came about as a result of his "determinate counsel and foreknowledge." To insure that good came from the sin, God had to give Joseph favor with some (which involved operating upon their wills and desires), including Pharoah. He also had to be in control of events and circumstances (which affect and determine what we think, choose, and do).
2) Was God in any sense a cause of the sin?
3) Did God want or desire, in any way, that the sin be committed?
4) If God wanted the sin committed, and determined that it be committed, and was instrumental in its commission, then how is it sin or evil? And, how can the brothers be condemned for doing what God wanted? And, how can we then exonerate God or clear him of being guilty of doing evil himself? It seems that the brothers were doing the will of God when they sinned in selling their brother into slavery.
Next AP (Arminian Perspective) says:
"But this doesn’t mean that God caused them to sin so that He could bring good out of it."
Again, let us substitute the words "knowingly permitted" for "caused." So, does AP deny that it all came about because God "knowingly (and willingly) permitted" it? Suppose God wills it not to happen and makes it thus an impossible occurrence? Did not Jeremiah ask "who is he that says and it comes to pass when the Lord commanded (decreed, or knowingly permitted) it not"? (Lam. 3: 37)
Further, who can deny that God was in some sense a "cause" of the sin? Is he not the first cause of all things? Do not all causes and effects descend from him as the first cause? There would be no sin had God created this world as a world where sin was impossible. Both the world of angels and men have had evil to occur within them. But, we believe that the eternal state for redeemed man will be a world where sin is not possible. In regard to Aristotle's "four causes" (concerning which I have written before) we must say that God is at least the "material cause" of all causes and effects. Secondly, who can deny that God could have gotten Joseph into Egypt apart from the sin of his brothers? Thirdly, who can deny that God could have prevented the sin of the brothers as he did Abimelech? (Gen. 20: 6) Fourthly, if something cannot come to pass without God's permissive will, then his permissive will becomes a cause or necessary condition.
Obviously God was a cause, but he was not the immediate cause, nor the one to whom guilt belongs for the act. They made a relatively free choice to do the evil. Satan, by the willing sufferance of God, put the thought of doing evil to Joseph in the hearts of his brothers. He was a cause. But, so too was the evil nature of sin and lust a cause, for they were moved to envy and jealousy. There were other causes too, what we call "second causes." Oftentimes an effect is the result of several causes, one cause often acting as a catalyst. The idea that God is no cause, in any sense, of a creature's sin is ridiculous.
In law there is a logical argument called the "but for" rule for deciding the cause of an act (and thus responsibility). Lawyers frequently argue saying "but for" this, that would not have happened. Thus, in their search for causal responsibility, guilt or blame, the "but for" argument is applied. The problem is; Many effects are the result of the conjunction of several causes, and in such cases each cause would be shown to be responsible for the effect by the "but/for" argument. For instance I could say "but for" my father I would not have been born. I could also say "but for" my mother I would not be here. Both are then shown to be responsible or the cause of my being born. Now, let us apply this reasoning to the existence of the evil of sin, which would be to help us understand the disagreement between Piper (and Calvinists and Predestinarians) and AP (Arminians). But for God not creating the creature man, there would have been no man, and if no man, no evil of sin. This shows that God is the cause and responsible agent of evil, what we might call the "material cause" of it all. But, God is unique in that he is the one and only Creator and he has creator rights, sovereign rights. Further, God takes this responsibility and it is his sovereign right to create a world where sin is not only possible, but inevitable. Further, no one has legal "standing" to challenge his decision. No creature can say to his Creator, by way of condemnation of him, "why did you make me this way?"
Further, AP believes in the absolute and unlimited foreknowledge of God, unlike the Hyper Arminians, the Open Theists, or "Process" theologians, who say that God cannot foreknow the choices of his creatures for this would deny them their "free will." So, God made Adam man (including Joseph and his brothers) knowing that he was going to sin and bring all our woes upon the world. This brings us to consider what are called "product liability" laws and the philosophy behind them.
If I produce a product (create something) and I know in advance that it has a defect which likely will do harm, then I am responsible for that harm. Well, man, like angel, is God's creation and he created him with what we might call a defect or weakness, such as mutability and pliability, or some other limitation, and knew in advance what awful consequences would ensue as a result of such weakness. God is thus in some sense responsible, though he is not culpable nor does he need justification from creatures. God has judged that a world with human choice and the possibility of evil and rebellion against Heaven's monarchy is better, for the present time, than a world where there is no such freedom and independence, or self determination. In a nutshell, God created a world where evil was made possible, foreseen, and knowingly and willingly suffered to occur, by his decree/will/choice/determination/causation.
Next, AP says:
"Rather, at every step of the way, God was working out His plan to get Joseph to Egypt, even through the sinful free choices of his brothers. In this way, God was “sending”Joseph to Egypt by ensuring that Joseph got to Egypt even through the sinful free will choices that God in no way caused Joseph’s brothers to commit."
"God worked his purposes through the sinful free choices of his brothers." Determinists can avow the same thing, although they might define "free choices" somewhat differently. However, the question evaded is this: are there causes to choice and can God be the cause of anyone's free choice? Can he work internally in a person so that he or she wills and then does such and such? Does not Paul affirm that he can, at least as respects choices to do good, "work in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure"? (Phil. 2: 13) So, it is not true to say that "God in no way caused Joseph's brothers to commit sin," and for the reasons given above on causality and foreknowledge.
Further, could not God get Joseph to Egypt (send him) in a "way" other than through the sin way? Why did he choose to get Joseph to Egypt through the sin "way" and not through some good way?
Next, AP says:
"God is so wise that even the free will choices of His creatures cannot thwart His ultimate purposes, and God can use those choices, even sinful ones, to accomplish those purposes."
Amen! But, what is missing is the idea that God can cause a man to think a thought, to make a certain choice, and to do a certain thing. The scriptures are full of examples where God is shown to do that very thing. Consider only the words "the kings heart is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers of water; he turns it wherever he wishes." (Prov. 21: 1) I have already mentioned Phil. 2: 13.
Next, AP says:
"So we conclude that while Joseph’s brothers’ intentions in their actions were to get rid of Joseph forever, God’s intentions in (or through) their actions were to get Joseph to Egypt. This in no way means that God caused those actions. But this will not do for Piper. He seems to want this passage to say something more, though appears hesitant to come right out and say it."
So, the debate comes down to this question - Is God in any sense a "cause" of evil (sin)? I think the proposition that says he cannot in any way be a cause is absurd and a living in denial. Those who deny that God is in any sense a "cause" of evil will not generally deny affirming that God is a cause of good, yea, of all the good in the world. They also have little trouble agreeing with those who say that all the evil in the world comes from Satan. That sounds quite like ancient Manichean belief in two Gods, one who is the source and cause of all good and the other the source and cause of all evil. But, God says he is the Creator of Evil (Isa. 45: 7). That is, he is the one who created a world where evil is possible.
Does that mean that God is the one who is immediately causing any creature's sin? Is he the one who tempts and entices anyone to sin? No, the bible teaches, and so does the 1689 London Baptist Confession, that God has decreed all things to happen as it does yet in such a manner that no man is forced or compelled to sin by God's influence or working, i.e. God is not the "author" of sin, meaning that sin is not his direct creation, but a byproduct of it. Can I minutely explain how God can be the cause of sin and yet find men justly responsible for the sins he in some sense causes? No, and neither has any man in my opinion. That is why I am Compatibilist as was Spurgeon. Man and angels have enough freedom and independency to make them responsible; And, God has enough wisdom and sovereign power to bring a man to make the choices he wants them to make. Consider that the record of Moses says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. He also records that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. He also even records the fact that Pharaoh's heart was hardened without mentioning who or what caused it. Let us just leave it at that without explaining all the mechanics of how that works out. Let the Arminian wrestle with the text saying God hardened it, and let the Calvinist wrestle with the text saying Pharaoh hardened his own heart.
Next, AP says:
"...how God might intend for something other than what Joseph’s brother’s intended by their actions without in anyway needing to cause those specific actions or even approve of the motive behind them."
But, we have already concluded that nothing comes to pass but what God foresees and suffers to come to pass willingly and knowingly.
Next, AP says:
"God can mean for their evil intentions to bring about the good that God intends (getting Joseph to Egypt and saving many from famine and ultimately reconciling Joseph to his family, etc.) without in any way causing those actions or decreeing them from all eternity."
But, there is no way that God can be shown to not be the cause of all that is. Further, God foresaw what the brothers would do if he allowed them to do it and determined to let them do it rather than stopping them.
AP admits that God may make use of evil to bring about good. And we can agree that God has not created or suffered the existence of sin and evil as an end in itself, for that would make him a lover of evil and sin. The good is the end, and God makes use of evil and sin as a means to bring about good. It is the question Paul raises in Romans three when he speaks of the question of doing evil that good may come, a proposition he denies.
As I said recently in another posting, I will write more on this subject in the future. However, as was the case with the video about Calvinists not being able to answer a particular question, I was provoked to respond. The same is true with the blog entry by A.P.
I say that each person must become fully persuaded in his own mind on this deep and fascinating subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment