The Evangelical Universalist Forum

On The Legitimacy of Ascribing Certain Evils to God

Does that mean that you believe that God with His eternal viewpoint is bound by the same perception of past present and future as we are? My understanding of most Christians’ view of God is that he sees all of time as one superimposed state and thus every moment is seen as a kind of mega-present. Jesus on the other hand was bounded by time and so it’s not surprising that there were things beyond his event horizon that limited any presience.

Just curious.

P.S. The book of Acts seems like fertile ground for support of firstborn888 (must try to find counter passages)

TotalVictory-

Like you said earlier on another thread, it’s amazing how similar we are on this.

I’ve just read your opening post and haven’t caught up on the discussion. We have to agree of course that in a broad sense the evils that occur in our world are permitted by God as ‘possible worlds’, ways the world might/might not become in the event God creates a free world. Let’s just say God countenances these possibilities when he decides to create our world under the circumstances that define how it is to grow and become. Presummably God knows all the crap that might occur. I think it follows that God’s choice to create is a choice to risk these evils.

But I’m with you in refusing to include such evils as falling WITHIN the scope of God’s will. They’re a ‘risk’ God runs, and like any of us who risks something undesired, we wouldn’t say the risk is something we want, will, or desire. We embraced the risk, yes, because there’s no getting what we want apart from running that risk. But that’s not to say the evil risked falls within the scope of what we “will.” On the contrary, as ‘risk’ it falls within the scope of what we do “not will.” Nor would we say the occurrence of that which we risk “fits” into our plan in some necessary sort of way. We generally do all we can, given the rules of play, to avoid the occurrence of that which we risk. My default assumption then is that God does all God can do, given the rules that govern his relationship to the world, to maximize good and minimize evil. When evil occurs, I assume the will of God in that even was simply defeated. The question is, do we want to say God can ‘attempt’ to prevent evil and straight up fail to do so so? I had a professor in school who often said, “Whatever God tries to do he does.” I agreed at the time. Now I’d disagree. If God qualifies the exercise of his power to give us space and freedom to become what he desires (one of rules of engagement God sovereignly puts in place), then God can’t flex all the muscle he’s got, so to speak. That’s how evil can occur in spite of God’s “doing all God can do” to prevent it. His “all” in this instance is defined not in terms of an unqualified exercise of omnipotence (surely that WOULD prevent whatever it attempted to prevent), but rather a qualified exercise of power within the limits that make creation and creation’s becoming possible. Once there is a free world to relate to, God is ‘functionally finite’.

An analogy might be our having kids. A couple can be perfectly happy and have no need of children yet freely decide to have kids as an expression of their love and so that their children in turn become loving persons. But parents know this decision runs the risk that their kids will experience evil and suffering, or worse, that they’ll become doers of evil and bring great suffering into the lives of others. When their adult kids make poor/evil choices, parents may do all within their power to convince them to do otherwise and simply fail to do so. Their ‘will’ fails. No parent would say that the evil their children do falls within the scope of their “will” for their children simply because it’s the case that they as parents accepted the risk of such evil in deciding to create children.

Tom

To us it’s a risk because we don’t know the future. What I see here being described is basically a cosmic ‘crap shoot’ with us as the casualties. Of course all are free to have their view but this concept absolutely undermines my understanding of God.

There are no easy answers but to me this "God’s risk’ concept seems like a little kid who has too much power and no wisdom how to use it and really needs to go to ‘time out’ for a while :wink:

I notice that many (most?) who adhere to ET have this concept of free-will being worth the risk because love can’t be real if it’s forced etc etc - BUT with unending punishment as the result? That kid would SERIOUSLY need to go on an eternal time out :exclamation: :astonished: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Anyway, I understand why it seems better to think this fallen state wasn’t in the plan and it could have gone either way. But you really have to see God as a limited being to adhere to that view.

Thanks Firstborn. Good comments.

Firsborn: To us it’s a risk because we don’t know the future.

Tom: I’m an open theist, so I don’t think God eternally possesses an unchanging blueprint of all that occurs.

Firstborn: What I see here being described is basically a cosmic ‘crap shoot’ with us as the casualties.

Tom: ‘Risk’ CAN be that sort of thing. But it doesn’t HAVE to be that. People can and do take ‘good risks’—studied, informed, and worthwhile risks. There’s nothing inherently ‘crap shootish’ about risk per se if by ‘crap shoot’ you mean risks that are irresponsible because not sufficiently informed or worthwhile.

Firstborn: There are no easy answers but to me this "God’s risk’ concept seems like a little kid who has too much power and no wisdom how to use it and really needs to go to ‘time out’ for a while.

Tom: I understand how it comes across to many people.

Firstborn: I notice that many (most?) who adhere to ET have this concept of free-will being worth the risk because love can’t be real if it’s forced etc etc - BUT with unending punishment as the result? That kid would SERIOUSLY need to go on an eternal time out.

Tom: It’s ‘love’ and not ‘freedom’ that’s worth the risk. Freedom just constitutes the risk which God takes for the sake of love. I agree that if unending punishment for creatures was a possible result that we’d have a huge problem (whether open theism is true or not). But if UR is true?

Firstborn: Anyway, I understand why it seems better to think this fallen state wasn’t in the plan and it could have gone either way. But you really have to see God as a limited being to adhere to that view.

Tom: Well, I do view God as functionally limited and finite. That is, I think God has freely limited the exercise of his power to make room for relating to creation. And God remains committed to those conditions. So yes, in a sense God is limited. Secondly, many open theists (not all, no ‘one’ view on this is definitive of the view per se) believe God foreknew an eventual fall (not inconsistent with open theism); i.e.,he knew he wasn’t going to be able to achieve his purposes without evil undermining the project.

Pax,
Tom

Very much appreciate your comments here Tom.

And firstborn (and Jason too I guess; see thread in General discussion); I remain very very reluctant to describe God in the sorts of terms and definitions that make it all appear as if God is pitted against Himself in the drama we call life and history. It is simply a dead end for me to describe a reality wherein God is responsible for (as in orchestrating) everything.

Consider the themes of war and conflict used in the bible to describe what is going on; how can God be in conflict with Himself – which He surely must be if He orchestrates the evil which He simultaneously decries and rails against. Is God railing against Himself?

I have often described sin as taking the “non-God” choice. If God is responsible for orchestrating all – even evil – then it is literally non-sense to think that there is such a thing as a “non-God” choice. If He willed even the rebellion against Himself, then how can we say rebellion is a “bad” thing; a thing to be overcome.

I take it to be axiomatic that sin is irrational. But if we lay it at God’s feet, do we also thereby lay irrationality at God’s feet too?? Heaven forbid.

No, the reality of history, as I see it having evolved, is that God did in fact create beings capable of acting outside His will; beings capable of NOT treating each other in love – and capable of breaking the “Golden rule”. It would be incoherent to say that God’s will is both to keep AND to break the rule of Love; but such seems to be the logical destination of the theology that holds God responsible for evil.

Further, I have little to no clue how the understanding that God wills evil can help me in 2 very specific situations I am now struggling to comfort and help find meaning in. In the first, an honest and sincere man is about to lose his business and livelihood – due to the wrongdoing of a fellow Christian it turns out he should NOT have trusted. In the second, a dear friends wife now suffers severe postpartum depression with severe paranoia wherein the baby (6 mos) is himself at risk. Appropriate medical action is being undertaken. (she is forcefully hospitalized against her “will”)

Now in both these cases, sincere and devout men are suffering; if I were to actually believe that these evils in their lives were the will of God (to further His purposes; to build character; whatever) I can see literally no way to know how to properly comfort them and advise them. Instead, what I say is that there is NO way God wanted this to happen; (ie God does not will Christian business partners to be frauds, thieves, liars; nor does He will acute psychosis upon innocent new mothers) I say an enemy has done this; I say these are situations which God can, and will in His time and ways redeem and restore. But that is very very different from saying God willed the evils in the first place.

It is simply a distinction without which life becomes incoherent for me. Yes; I am confident that God brings good from evil. But He does so in harmony with Himself; not in contradiction with Himself.

So to repeat again my answer to the question implied in the title of this post; there is no legitimacy to ascribing any evils to God. Ever. There really are categories which are against God and must be fought against at all time no matter what. The fact that God can and will bring happiness from misery in NO way means He must take credit/blame for the misery itself. (Further, it seems this theology lends itself to rendering evangelism as a useless activity; for perhaps God also willed the heathen to be right where they are…)

I hope you see my dilemma…

Worshipping together with you the God who WILL make all things new again,

TotalVictory
Bobx3

This is one take on God’s will - quoted from chapter 11 (Predestination and Election) of Stephen Jones’ online book Creations Jubilee

Hello JeffA:

As you no doubt suspect, I find little resonance here with Stephen Jones. For how on earth do we, you and I, discern between God’s “will” and God’s “plan”? And how am I to distinguish between those “evils” (if evil even IS a meaningful distinction; if given that God causes all of it…) which I must protest and those which I must accommodate. I mean I certainly wouldn’t want to be caught protesting an evil which was from God’s hand now – would I? So how to tell the difference – if indeed I must.

Want an example?
I care for a child who has been injured by his parent. The parent of course claims great love and affection for this child. But the child “rebelled” – as children do – and so this parent, in “love” he says, sought to discipline the kid. Who now has a broken arm as a result.

To me this is a crime and is child abuse. (reported as such to the authorities; my confidence in which is marginal at best) Yet because of my views of an infinitely resourceful God, I truly believe this situation can be redeemed. But let me be frank; most of what I get to see is NOT redeemed; it only festers into what I fear will be greater injuries in the future.

So, continuing with my frankness and my dilemma, as I see it, it would be a betrayal not only of the GOD I believe in, but also a betrayal of this wounded and suffering child, to even TRY to assert that his suffering was orchestrated and/or ordained by God. That is far too confusing for any sentient creature to have to untangle I would submit.

Thus, I don’t even try. I simply insist that, though I hope and pray (and even believe) God WILL bring good from this horrible abuse, I simply cannot, nor can I ever envision, laying blame for this abuse at God’s feet. I can not do it. I will not do it. In this then, I am either correct and ennobled, or I am wrong and diminish the vision of God.

For us to even have a category of evil to discuss, it must be a rational one and coherent. To me, an “evil” which God creates, is the ultimate incoherence. If there is a “maturity” that claims otherwise, I confess I chose “immaturity”. For me, by definition, God is good and NOT evil. Thus, I have a huge problem with giving God “credit” for evils.

(laying low with a bad cold…)

TotalVictory
Bobx3

Good stuff. Hope you’re feeling better Bob.

To continue a bit…

S. Jones: “The word ‘thelema’ is used about 60 times in the New Testament. It is usually translated “will.” It denotes the will in the sense of the ‘desire’ or ‘wish’. However, the word ‘boulema’ refers to one’s ‘resolve’. It goes beyond a mere desire. It denotes the actual ‘plan’, the ‘intention’, or the ‘outworking of the will’.”

Tom: If his point is that God’s ‘boulema’ is irresistible and/or unfailing in achieving its intended end, then Scripture seems clearly to contradict this. One example that comes to mind: Lk 7.30: “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will [counsel, plan = ‘boule’] of God for them, being not baptized of John.”

God’s ‘boule’ can on occasion be successfully resisted and defeated.

I think a basic distinction between “wanting/wishing/desiring” and “intending/determining/resolving” is important. Obviously these are different, if even overlapping, ideas. Applying it to God is a bit more tricky.

It does seem to me that God does not—as is sometimes true of us—‘want’ without ‘intending’, or ‘desire X’ without ‘resolving on X’. We can ‘want/desire’ without ‘intending to act’ in a way that will bring us what we want (although I suppose we could question just how much somebody ‘wants’ something if they’re not ‘resolved to act’ to achieve what they want). But whatever the case may be with us, with God there’s perfect symmetry/agreement between God’s ‘wanting/desiring’ and God’s ‘resolving/determining’ to act in the sense that if God ‘desires/wants X’ then God also ‘resolves on/intends X’.

The question is—Does God get everything God resolves on? That is, is God’s ‘boulema’, the intented act of God aimed at achieving what God ‘wants’, always successful? Does God always get all God resolves and sets out to achieve? To me the answer to this is clearly ‘no’. And Luke seems to make this point explicit.

And sometimes the ‘want/desire’ | ‘intention/resolve’ lines blur into a single sort of act. Take Mat 23.37f as an example:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone them who are sent to you. How often I would have ‘thelo’] gathered your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not ‘thelo’].”

God’s will is here expressed in terms of ‘thelo’ (‘desire’/’want’) and there’s no mention of either ‘boule’ or ‘boulema’ (to ‘intend’ or ‘resolve’). But surely it’s evident that God has not MERELY ‘wanted’ to gather Jerusalem without resolving to act. God has indeed acted intentionally, he resolved on gathering Israel together. But they did not ‘want’ ‘thelo’] it. And here Israel’s ‘not wanting’ makes sense only as an intended, resolved act of rejection of God’s attempts to gather them. They can hardly have been successful at stopping God from ‘wanting’ or ‘desiring’ to gather them.

I think the safe thing to do is make the distinction between ‘motivation’ and ‘action’. We’re motivated by ‘desires’ and ‘wants’ to ‘resolve on’ or ‘intentionally adopt’ a plan, a course of action, in line with our desires. And in this sense I think it’s safe to say God never fails to resolve on his desires, never fails to act with a view to fulfilling his desires.

Back to the original question (if I haven’t lost it!). What about evil? Can God be ‘motivated’ by evil desires? Hardly. The question of God’s ‘desiring’ evil, i.e., intending evil because it pleases him (i.e., God being motivated by evil’s inherent beauty or goodness) is out of the question. If not, then it would seem to follow that neither can God resolve on, or intend an evil course of action.

Now the question is whether God can—and this is where I want to be careful–make compatibilistic use, say, of the evil intentions/plans of wicked persons? Can it ever be compatible with divine omnibenevolence to ‘direct’ or ‘channel’ (‘orchestrate’, ‘influence’) the already resolved/determined evil intentions/plans of persons/nations in a way that best fits his overall plan? I’d like to answer YES to this, but a very careful yes, not at all similar to Calvinism’s secondary causation of unconditionally decreed outcomes.

I have in mind God’s ‘making use’ of Babylon, placing a ‘hook’ in their snout to bring them in judgment upon Israel. God even calls this evil nation “my holy ones” (as in ‘chosen’ as an instrument to execute his judgment upon Israel). Does God desire evil? No. Does God want Babylon to want to destroy Israel? I think surely not. But does God ‘want’ to make compatibilistic use of the already determined evil characters and intentions of wicked persons in such cases? I think so, yeah. God doesn’t do what God does not want to do; and what God does, God wants to do. But in these sorts of cases, I think (a) such actions are God’s ‘response’ to specific conflicted and fallen situations, and so (b) are conditional (as opposed to unconditionally decreed), and © motivated by a desire to maximize goodness and minimize evil overall.

This is a big and controversial issue and I don’t have final answers myself. But it seems clear enough to me in Scripture that God makes ‘instrumental’ use of evil in cases where (a) through © apply.

Blessings,
Tom

TV,
You’re right - I didn’t expect you to have much truck with SJ’s view but I thought it was worth bringing to the discussion.

However, I want to make a reference here to a book that was referenced in a link I followed from Richard Dawkins site. The article is called Is God a Delusion? A Reply to Religion’s Cultured Despisers . and is interesting in its own right (perhaps I should put a link in the books section).

However, germaine to this discussion is…

I haven’t read this book so can’t comment but I might get it and see (anyone else know of it?).

Also of interest here is this paragraph concerning Reitan’s next book project:

Reitan also has an interesting looking blog called: The Piety That Lies Between: A Progressive Christian Perspective. I have only just bookmarked it so cannot comment on its content yet.

Jeff-

I like the little I’ve read of Reitan. His ‘Shoebox Analogy’ helped me.

But he says, “We argue that, given core Christian teachings about God and the Atonement, Universalism is a more defensible doctrine than any version of the doctrine of Hell.”

By “hell” here he must mean any version of an ‘irrevocable/eternal hell’, because an understanding of hell as ‘temporary’ is “a” version of hell that’s compatible with UR. So it’s not all or any version of hell than which UR is more defensible. A ‘temporary version of hell’ can be a ‘UR version of hell’. It’s not ‘hell’ per se that I want to shoot down. It’s just hell as irrevocable.

Tom

right… that is exactly what he means. He discussed this issue several times recently in his blog *The Piety That Lies *Between, as well as in his new book.