A friend of mine was recently telling me about some discussions taking place in a small group that he leads. This summer his inquisitive small group participants have been asking questions related to how a good God could allow evil and suffering. The amazing thing is that my friend, Brian Cole, is a youth pastor! These questions are being asked by students living in the world of twerking, social media, and the iPad. Children, teenagers, and adults who follow Jesus will all face this issue, regardless of what church they are a part of or what denomination that church is affiliated with. It’s part of living in a fallen world. How can we believe God is good when 227,898 people die a day after Christmas in 2004’s deadly tsunami? How can we reconcile our belief in a loving God when there are upwards to 27 million human slaves? What do we say when we are faced with the reality of child sex trafficking? How is God sovereign over creation and human choice?
If we’re honest, theologians have offered a number of solutions to God’s sovereignty and the “problem” of evil. Before I make a proposal concerning how we should understand this antinomy, I want to remind our readers that Christians do not differ on this issue in the same way that we differ with atheists and agnostics. It is a common argument amongst skeptics to point to the existence of evil as one of the reasons to deny the existence of the good and loving God that Christians worship (cf. J. L. Mackie’s The Miracle of Theism). Able, Kenny, and myself all agree that God exists and that he is holy, good, and loving. We also all agree that God is sovereign. Therefore, what follows is simply how I reconcile what I read in Scripture in relation to the question, how is God sovereign over human choices, especially when people do stupid, evil acts?
I think C. Michael Patton has provided a helpful summary of various Christian perspectives regarding God’s sovereignty by providing four generalizations:
- Meticulous sovereignty: God causes evil for the greater good.
- Providential sovereignty: God wills evil for the greater good.
- Providential oversight: God uses evil for the greater good.
- Influential oversight: God allows evil for the greater good.
I’m inclined to say that each perspective has texts that appear to support their view, yet options two and three appear to me to be the best positions to hold, both biblically and theologically, but also in regards to missional engagement. While theologians spend hours and spill gallons of ink debating over the exact nature of God’s sovereignty, I think many people are left rolling their eyes because they simply want to know how to love God more or come to the place where they can be intellectually honest in their faith. Therefore, I want to briefly lay out my perspective on this subject in the hopes for a lot of good discussion in the comments!
Laying Cards on the Table: God Mysteriously both Wills and Uses Evil for the Greater Good and His Own Glory.
In holding to a perspective that looks like 2.5 in relation to Patton’s summary, I know I’m opening myself up to the criticism of being inconsistent. So be it. I like to think that it’s really me just embracing the paradoxes of the kingdom of God, but I’m a pastor and I’m thinking theologically about this subject through the lens of what a conversation looks like when a family in our church suffers the consequences of evil. Or on a more personal note, how I would process the horror of horrors were it to happen to me.
So, depending upon the situation, I believe it is pastorally prudent and most glorifying to God if we acknowledge that God both wills and uses evil for the greater good and his own glory. This simply means that there are certain acts which God determined would happen before they happened and that God can and does use those acts for a greater good, ultimately his own glory. I say “depending upon the situation” because I would strongly advise my fellow pastors never to get into a theological debate with a family that has recently experienced a life-shattering loss. If parents have lost their child, do not pretend to know why this happened when they ask you why God did this. I think it best to just grieve with them and acknowledge our finiteness and expressing deep sorrow.
Yet on some level, God both wills and uses these losses for the greater good and for his own glory.
God’s Providence Neither Makes God Sinful or Human’s without Responsibility.
A common set of criticisms against a more “reformed” perspective regarding God’s sovereignty is that such a view makes God the author of evil and leaves humans irresponsible for their choices and/or actions. Yet in my reading of Reformed theologians from the past and present leaves me with the impression that God is both sovereign over the details of life and that human beings are responsible. For example, John Owen wrote:
“… that effectual working of his will, according to his eternal purpose, whereby, though some agents, as the wills of men, are causes most free and indefinite, or unlimited lords of their own actions, in respect of their internal principle of operation (that is, their own nature), [they] are yet all, in respect of his decree, and by his powerful working, determined to this or that effect in particular; not that they are compelled to do this, or hindered from doing that, but are inclined and disposed to do this or that, according to their proper manner of working, that is, most freely: for truly such testimonies are everywhere obvious in Scripture, of the stirring up of men’s wills and minds, of bending and inclining them to divers things, of the governing of the secret thoughts and motions of the heart, as cannot by any means be referred to a naked permission, with a government of external actions, or to a general influence, whereby they should have power to do this or that, or any thing else; wherein, as some suppose, his whole providence consisteth.” (John Owen, A Display of Arminianism, in Works, 10:36)
This is the same argument that J. I. Packer makes in his classic Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. The view that God’s sovereignty and human choice coexist is known as compatibilism. Yes, this is a paradox, but it seems to be the best way to account for what we read in Scripture. After all, the Scriptures explicitly state that God is holy (Lev. 19:2; Ps. 77:13; Heb. 12:10; 1 Pet. 1:16). We also observe that God holds human beings accountable for the things they believe and the things that they do.
Yet God, somewhat mysteriously, is able to still have providential sovereignty over sin. For example, the prophet Jeremiah wrote,
“Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? Why should a living man complain, a man, about the punishment of his sins?” (Lam. 3:37-39)
And to beat a dead horse to death once more, the example of Pharaoh still remains extremely convincing for me. We are initially told that God would harden Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 4:21; cf. 7:3) and then read of this occurring in multiple locations (9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:8). While I acknowledge that the text states that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (8:15, 32; 9:34), this does not nullify the explicitly clear statement made by Yahweh in Exodus 4:21, prior to Pharaoh’s self-hardening.
The concept of human sin being a part of God’s sovereign plan is found throughout the OT (cf. 1 Sam. 2:12-15; 2 Sam. 16:5-10; 24:1; 1 Kings 22:21-28). The concept of God’s will and use of evil is also seen in the crucifixion of Jesus the Christ. The Spirit empowered apostle Peter preached this truth when he said:
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know– this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” (Acts 2:22-23)
It was through the hands of lawless men that God sovereignly predetermined how Jesus would die. I can see no other way to reconcile the biblical data. God mysteriously both wills and uses evil.
Embracing the Mystery of God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility.
Years ago, I read a great quote from D.A. Carson:
“One of the common ingredients in most of the attempts to overthrow compatibilism is the sacrifice of mystery. The problem looks neater when, say, God is not behind evil in any sense. But quite apart from the fact that the biblical texts will not allow so easy an escape, the result is a totally nonmysterious God. And somehow the god of this picture is domesticated, completely unpuzzling… The mystery of providence defies our attempt to tame it by reason. I do not mean it is illogical; I mean that we do not know enough to be able to unpack it and domesticate it.” (D.A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?, 225-226).
The intellectually stimulated side of me wants to lay out a strong logical case as to why God is both sovereign and sin exists in his providential plans. I want to spend time noting exegetical and theological details related to how God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11) or the practical outworking of what Solomon means when he says that “the king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will” (Prov. 21:1). I want to point out that God actually told Abimelech in Genesis 20:6 that he had kept him from sinning, which clearly seems to make libertarian free will untenable. Finally, I would want to spend more time talking about Joseph’s prophetic wisdom in acknowledging that while his brothers intended to sell him into slavery for the purpose of evil, “God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20).
But there’s another part of me that seems to balance this out. There’s a part of me that is far too pietistic to opt for a strictly intellectual focus in my theological reflection. I’m equally moved by the ethos of God’s self-revelation.
That part of me takes a step back and has to simply say,
“You know what, I can see that God wills and uses evil for a greater good and for his own glory, but I don’t really understand how that fits together. My best guess has to start by having a sense of wonder and awe at the mystery of God’s providence.”
Is God involved in the details of human decisions? Absolutely. And I think it’s pastorally sensitive and biblically sanctioned to talk about these concepts by using words like “foreordained” or “allowed” or “permitted” or “used” as the situation demands. Though God uses secondary causes, including evil, as a means to accomplish his will, this all happens in a mysterious way and we would be wise to embrace the mystery. When Charles Spurgeon was asked how he reconciled these concepts, he replied, “I do not try to reconcile friends.” I’m content with embracing the divine mystery and will defend God’s sovereignty and human responsibility with equal passion and equal humility!
I invite you to read the other two contributions to this discussion here and here, and then jump in to the comment threads.
Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
I think I tend to fall more into this camp than anywhere, although I stop at providential oversight. With something like providential sovereignty it seems hard to escape ideas like “it was God’s will that His will be defied” or “God gave Adam a commandment that He actually wanted Adam to disobey.”
Joe, I agree.
No matter what position you take you are going to have some ideas that are going to be at least a little frustrating to reconcile with other ideas we have 🙂
I still keep coming back to Molinism rather than Compatibilism to bring some relief to the tension of the paradox. In nutshell I think the problems with Calvinist compatibilism are these 1) the “mystery” of how God decrees and is the primary cause of someone’s evil, yet the individual as the secondary cause is only the responsible one, and 2) the “mystery” that “free” human choice always lines up with God’s decree. At least two anyway…
It seems that another solution without so much paradox and “mystery”, if it fits the scripture and involves less cognitive dissonance, would be preferable. I think Molinism is a great candidate. Here human choices are real and not causally determined. At the same time, God chooses which world with which creatures and their free choices will the be THE world. So saying that everything that happens is part of God’s decree is true in as much as he could have chosen a different world, creatures, interactions with it, etc. for a different outcome. He specifically chose to actualize THIS world with all of its details. But he is not creatures choices are indeed theirs and they have not been primarily caused by God.
I think that when the Biblical authors speak of God being in control and planning all things they are usually not using technical philosophical terms like we do now. “cause”, “sovereignty”, “responsibility”. etc. have ranges of meaning – and I think the Bibles teaching on God being in control of all things can fit in a Molinist paradigm.
Furthermore, I think one can hold to a Calvinist soteriology with a Molinist perspective on sovereignty.
There are a couple of issues with Molinism, though: 1) the grounding objection, which, as I understand it, deals with the question of how God knows the “Free” choice of beings not even created yet and what is their freedom and choosing self grounded in, and 2) some think that Molinism puts God and his plans at the mercy of others choices, ultimately. I think that one can be overcome pretty easily, though.
Another problem with Molinism, it is pretty hard to support with Scripture. It is more philosophical than Scriptural.
Also, Molinism leaves God learning something. God figuring it out. God didn’t have to look down the corridors of many world’s to learn or figure out which one would work best. God is the Great Story Teller. He knows the end from the beginning.
Isa 46:8-11 “Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.
God knows.
@already,
I would respond to your first objection that by saying systematic theology is often the philosophical working out of different revealed truths in relation to each other and I don’t think that is problem unless the conclusions contradict scripture. Additionally I think an argument could be made that Compatibilism is itself a philosophical solution and not explicitly taught in scripture. In fact many atheists hold to Compatibilism that reconciles a determined physical universe with the conscious ‘free’ choice that appears to go with it.
To your second objection that God doesn’t need to ‘figure things out’ as it were, I think you misunderstand Molinism in that its proponents do not argue that God had to go through all of the options in time like we would, rather it describes a logical and not a temporal process which would be instaneous for God. You see the same kind of reasoning in the Calvinist debates about the order of the decrees of God (infra- and supralapsarianism).
Casey, I’ve always seen Molinism as more of a philosophical argument rather than one that is clearly exegetical. It seems like if we were taking texts that seem to support these different perspectives, Calvinism and Arminianism has a LOT of texts and Molinism has just a smaller amount. That doesn’t obviously mean it’s incorrect necessarily, but that it DOES often turn into a philosophical debate rather than explicitly being rooted in exegesis.
But then again, like I said before, I’ve only had a few encounters with Molinism and advocates of Molinism… maybe you could point me towards some better reading (or provide better arguments!).
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts though… I always enjoy them!
Casey, thanks for participating in the conversation. We should have had you write on Molinism so it could have been “4 views,” ha ha!
Molinism is hard to interact with because it seems like there isn’t a clear position on a lot of its ideas as well as its exegesis. I haven’t read a ton of Molinists, but I’ve noticed that it seems hard to pin down an actual “Molinist” position because of that diversity. Would you say that William Craig Lane represents the type of Molinism you hold to?
I guess I’d have to have you explain more or point to where I could read how a Molinist can hold to a Calvinistic soteriology because everything I’ve read makes that really difficult to understand. Obviously Molinism has a bit “higher” or “stronger” sense of sovereignty than Calvinists would say Arminians have, but I don’t see how they can have a Calvinistic soteriology, especially in regards to Unconditional Election. For me, it’s like reading when Geisler tried to say that he had a modified Calvinism… which wasn’t Calvinism! It was simply Arminianism with Eternal Security, ha ha!
I would venture to guess that there are more than just those two issues with Molinism. I see several others. I think I’ll try and write a short blog on those questions I have in the near future (I hope!).
Hey Luke…
OK, I think its helpful here to distinguish the doctrines of providence and salvation. They are definitely connected but it helps to keep their distinctions in mind.
I do think that theologians/philosophers take Molinism different directions and so it can be confusing (as if the core concept of Middle Knowledge wasn’t confusing enough for us non professional philosophy types).
And perhaps using “Middle Knowledge” (MK) would be more helpful than “Molinism” in this discussion because I think it can shed some of that baggage.
Yes, we leave exegesis and venture into philosophy we we discuss MK, but I think that is common and necessary in theology. You can’t have theology without philosophy. I’m not sure you can even have exegesis without philosophy. So don’t let the P word scare you!
For me, MK is simply a brilliant explanation of how God can be sovereign without impugning him with evil and without resorting to Open Theism. Knowing his creation intimately and omnisciently and his interactions with it God can plan/choose the exact world we live in and everything that happens without actually being the primary/determining cause for every detail…especially evil. So if a fallen man decides on blue socks instead of black socks on a certain day it does not require God directly causing him to choose blue over black and the man inexplicably freely choosing the same because its in his nature (the calvinist compatibilist position), but simply that man freely chose blue in the world God chose to actualize – knowing full well that in this world this man will choose blue on such and such a day.
Now, in a sense God is still responsible for evil even in MK understanding of providence – because God did not have to create anything and have evil occur as part of it. But, in MK God does not become the primary/determinitive cause of human evil actions – and this is the real rub for folks who see God as wholly good. IMO God can still be wholly good in planning/allowing for others to do evil, but not if He is the primary/determinitive cause of an evil act (much less all of them). This is an important distinction and one I think we can see played out in Job where Satan is the primary cause of the evil that happens to Job but Job knows ultimately that God has the final say on anything that happens or doesn’t. So scripture can speak of God’s responsibility for evil without requiring he is the one who actually caused it to happen.
So far we have been talking about Providence. But in regards to salvation I will attempt to show why I think MK is compatible with Calvinist Soteriology (and Terrance Theissen and I think Bruce Ware have done work in this regard).
I don’t think MK necessarily precludes God’s direct influence over human choices. It does not preclude Total Depravity as a consequence of the Fall. A MK world can still have God electing which of the fallen human beings he will save and regenerating them so they can freely choose him, I think.
In other words, I don’t think MK requires libertarian free will as defined by Arminians or requires prevenient grace.. Many things limit and constrain the degree of freedom of the will people have (physics, circumstance, awareness, environment, God’s direct involvement and not least the Fall). It may be that fallen human beings can never have faith without irresistible grace. But that is different than saying that God must be the primary/determining cause of every human choice (compatibilism) which runs into issues with the goodness of God.
So hopefully I’ve been able to make my case for MK a little better here. I am not saying I know that MK is the truth. It can only be a philosophical theory regarding providence, really. But I think Calvinist Compatabilism is too, and MK is better in regards to the problem of evil.
Thanks, Casey! I appreciate the time you took to write that. Let me think on that a bit.
I’m with you regarding not being afraid of philosophy. I’m just not a trained philosopher, so I struggle with some of these different ideas. Even compatibilism, as you’ve noted, is a philosophical concept attempting to reconcile biblical ideas.
I guess I just see a lot more biblical reason to remain a compatibilist rather than embracing MK because of the lack of textual support.
However, I’m going to think some more on that.
On a side note, I didn’t realize Ware held to MK! If he does, that makes sense of some things I’ve read from him.
Reflecting…
PREFACE: Be not alarmed by my questions, and be assured of my posture of brotherly love and the commitment to irenic dialogue.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
There is no doubt that there is mystery in the bible and in the world. But I admit that I have quite a bit of difficulty putting the frame of mystery around the questions we’re asking as a way to hold them together.
In my conversations with Calvinist over the years, this seems to me to be the standard approach when confronted with the conundrum of Calvinist claims that God is both morally good as well “divinely determining” every evil thing that ever happens.
To quote Roger Olson here… “Nearly all Calvinists confess that God is the standard of moral goodness, the source of all values, the perfectly loving source of love. Then they also confess that God ordains, designs, controls, and renders certain the most egregious evil acts such as the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a small child and the genocidal slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Rwanda. They confess that God “sees to it” that humans sin, as with the fall of Adam and eve. And they confess that all salvation is absolutely God’s doing and not at all dependent on free will decisions of people (monergism), and that God only saves some when he could save all—assuring that some large portion of humanity will spend eternity in hell when he could save them from it.” (Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology (pp. 178-180). Zondervan. )
This does not seem like a mystery to me. It goes beyond paradoxical. It seems like a contradiction that many Calvinists don’t want to face because, like Arminians, Calvinists genuinely want to maintain the sovereignty of God, and the “God-ness” of God.
But I propose that using the idea of mystery to avoid the question of apparent contradiction is incorrect. This is in no way an attempt to be pugnacious because I love the spirit in which we are all writing. It is conversational, collegial, and healthy, so I hope that shines through while I still ask the question…
“Doesn’t it seem to be more than a mystery, but rather a contradiction to insist that God is the source of all that is good, while also insisting that by his divine decree, God wanted there to be sex-slavery because, mysteriously, it would bring him glory?”
I’m not quoting Luke here, but I am imposing the question by using what I think I read, and what he wrote, as a way to develop it.
Can I preach these theological conclusions as realities to sex-slaves, for instance? If not, why not?
Can I… Should I try to protect people who are the beneficiaries of God’s sovereign choice that they be sex slaves from that reality?
And a final question… Why would I grieve with someone who this has happened to, when it happened for God’s glory? Why would God grieve about it? Can God grieve about anything that He decrees, and would He grieve about anything that He determined would happen and that would bring Him glory? That doesn’t seem to make sense.
I ask these questions (rather publicly) because I like the way Luke’s post begins, and I like the pastoral ethos and gentleness within the way he is talking about the struggle with these questions. However, that is also the reason I am asking the question as I do. If I can’t preach my theology to a grieving parent because it would hurt them to hear that God wanted the evil thing to happen to them, then do I have the right theology? Why should I protect my sheep from the truth about God’s desire for there to be evil raining down on them for his greater glory?
YIKES! For me this is where systematic theology and pastoral theology collide!
I hope, in all truth, that a gentle voice and a brotherly posture can be heard and felt in such questions. I also hope that the general way in which we continue to process this here remains soaked in love and irenic dialogue.
I don’t see how the Book of Job doesn’t throw a huge wrench into your theological gears. Even into the argument you just made. I think your pastoral counseling would have to look something like Job’s “friends” for you to stay consistent.
Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
Are you mad? ha ha.
nah, I love Kenny.
Kenny, thanks for your comments and questions. I absolutely receive them in the grace and humility that you clearly are exhibiting. I appreciate your questions for two reasons: (1) it allows for further clarification on positions that Reformed theology does hold to and (2) it allows for further clarification on positions that Reformed theology does not hold to!
I would be open to having someone provide a better way for Calvinists to answer these questions, but to avoid being a hyper-Calvinist jerk face and to avoid being an Arminian, the path of “mystery” seems to be best. Why do people suffer in such horrible ways? I don’t know.
I think this is also the path that the biblical writers take too. While I know of no specific text of Scripture that has a biblical author tying “mystery” to “disasters,” I do think that we see a trace of this type of awe in Paul’s letter to the Romans:
“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who
has known the mind of the Lord, who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” (Romans 11:33-36)
It seems to me that Paul makes this clear throughout the infamous Romans 9-11. God is just and has a plan, even if it doesn’t make sense to us… but let God be God.
I think you’ll have your work cut out for you regarding denying the paradoxical nature of the compatibilist’s perspective on God’s sovereignty and human choice. I would suggest that if you deny the paradoxical nature of these two, you must consistently then deny the paradoxical nature of
the “already” and “not yet” nature of the kingdom of God! Both the “already” and God’s specific involvement in the actions of human beings are affirmed in Scripture (see my above blog for numerous examples). Yet we also see Scripture affirming the “not yet” and human choice. I can’t see one consistently affirming the correct understanding of the kingdom (which you do) while denying the nature of God’s sovereignty and human choice. But then again, I’m not an Arminian, so maybe that makes sense to others, ha ha!
Yes, it does seem to be more than a mystery. It seems very difficult to reconcile those ideas. It’s difficult to understand how this will be for the greater good and God’s glory. No argument there! But I can’t deny what I see Scripture affirming simply because it doesn’t make sense to me. If I did that, I’d have issues with the Incarnation, Resurrection, and soooo much
more! So I choose to follow the example of Scripture and simply wrestle with these difficult questions and continue to affirm the goodness of God and do my best to trust him… just like Job did.
Absolutely! God is sovereign and has sovereignly chosen to accomplish his will through means. While we may observe that God has determined
certain things to occur, he could just as easily determine that others would
stand against those things in order to carry out his greater good. To me, this is something Arminians agree upon too (the use of means), so it doesn’t really seem like much of an argument against Calvinism as it is an argument against theism in general.
I would grieve with someone simply because that is the emotional response that my heart and mind affords in such a circumstance. I can grieve for things while still also acknowledging how it fits into God’s plan. I think parents do things like that all of the time… to think we have only one “will” at work is absolutely untrue. Parents discipline their children while not enjoying it because they have two different “wills” at work, yet one is stronger or more important than the other (according to those parents).
The rest of your question has to do with divine passibility and I don’t have the time right this minute to provide a fuller treatment. But I do believe that part of the perspective I hold to on that is related to the illustration of parents. To simplify, yes, God has a sense of feeling in the midst of our losses, yet he also has a greater plan at work. Again, I would point to Job as an example here.
One thing I’d like to suggest though is that I think Arminians are still faced with the same challenges that Calvinists are faced with. Assuming an Arminian framework, the question still stands: why doesn’t God stop evil? If God could stop sex trafficking, why doesn’t he? After all, we both affirm that God knows that such an event will take place.
Furthermore, if you go the route of suggesting that God’s greater commitment is to allow human beings total and complete free will, how do you reconcile that with the numerous texts of Scripture that indicate the
exact opposite to be true? Why do Arminians pray that God would open someone’s heart to believe the gospel and come to Christ? To me, a lot of Arminians have a better understanding of God’s sovereignty and human choice when they pray than when they theologize.
I resonate with these questions (and concerns) big time, Kenny! I wonder, though, if you’d also agree that doing any serious and technical theologizing is often out of place when we are comforting the grieving. I would think that in the midst of loss, our comfort would focus more upon God’s love and presence than issues of the divine decrees, etc. I guess I
have yet to attend a funeral or comfort a family where the big issue was the order of the decrees!
I would actually venture to guess that when people ask us why something has happened, we probably both would acknowledge that we live in a fallen world and that we’re very sorry for what’s happened in their lives.
From there, we’d probably look towards Jesus and how he can provide comfort through that situation.
To me, God is just as responsible for something happening if he decrees it to be so and if he sits by and allows it to happen. If a child is drowning in a pool and I simply allow him to die, am I not still responsible?
I don’t know. I’m not a philosopher, so I can’t answer those questions as well as others. But I do know that I struggle with many of the same questions you are! So I’m with you in the difficulty of struggling through
this as we wrestle with ideas and the consequences of those ideas.
Man, your response was incredibly gentle, honest, and helpful for me! You make me want to focus on what we both agree upon rather than what we disagree upon! I hope my brief response was even a tenth of as
well written and gracious as yours!
Why are you so angry? Settle down…