Does God Set us Up to Fail?

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
James 1:3

It is analogous to how God works in providence, how he can ‘arrange’ things to happen without violating anyone’s free will. It is a wonderful mystery that we cannot get our heads around. I will again plead Maggie’s sequence, as I am wont to do, or the amazing (and objective) correlations in George Müller’s experience. As in the analogy of the aborigines and the smartphone*, God’s ‘technology’ is beyond our grasp. How does God, free from the constraints of time (and I maintain, omnitemporal), have a meaningful relationship with those of us whose hearts, heads and wills exist in and are limited to sequential time.

 


*An aborigine who, let’s say, has had no contact with moderns until he is given a demonstration of a functioning piece of 21st century technology, maybe a smartphone. He then later, without the device, tries to explain what it does to a fellow tribesman. His mate then pooh-poohs the description, calling it impossible and meaningless, saying it is irrational, and then demanding that his reasoning is flawless. God’s ‘technology’ and relationships with time and space and material are likewise beyond our ken.

Another pertinent place to cite might be from Isaiah:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
    neither are your ways my ways,”

        declares the Lord.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
    so are my ways higher than your ways
    and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isaiah 55:8-9

1 Like

Thank you for your engagement, as always.

I perhaps did not explain myself well.
It seems to me that God would be against His nature to cause someone to do something against His nature.

I would not want to teach my children such a thing.
By fideism, I meant accepting a concept against one’s conscience based on the assertion that everything Paul wrote is God’s word. However, another possibility is that we don’t understand it–especially in light of James’ passage. It’s ok to say we don’t understand a passage. I would rather do that than teach my children the wrong thing.

I am hoping that Paul doesn’t mean this. However, if he does, I do not see how I could logically accept it. . It seems better to accept God is righteous and does not cause sin, than believe Paul’s every writing was above error. Paul even makes the point that some of his writings are his own musings. FF Bruce was quoted in “Blue Parakeet” that Paul would be rolling over in his grave if he knew that we took his writings on the level of Torah.

Sometimes it is easier to explain a concept if we put the shoe on the other foot. Islam’s Hadiths discuss a question put to Muhammad once–if God does everything, does He also sin? As I recall, the answer was “yes.” As Christians, we can rightly question this. However, by accepting something in the genre of what is in this passage, we seem to be arguing that Muhammad was right, and his followers would also be correct not to question. Surely we can question this; and we should.

I appreciate Lewis’ writing, but he also wrote that we should not accept OT slaughter out of mere abject terror.
Thus, there is a large, undistributed middle between saying we learn of God, and we accept what we read.

I do think that there is open area to interpret this passage in other manners. Gaventa was on the track for that. I have been very busy in work (including the weekend), so I haven’t been able to read her book (I only started it last year, and never got very deep).

In so much more of the Bible, it’s clear that God encourages truth and justice. We can certainly focus on that, over what we don’t understand. That is my position at this time, and it has been for most of my life. If I am wrong, may God encourage understanding of HIs word, and humility in my heart. As John Patrick wrote, “may my words come to naught.”

I am currently visiting my mom with my 7 year old daughter (by her request) for a sleep over, and working at the same time. Thank you for the discussion.
.

1 Like

Maybe I’ve just been a Calvinist too long, or (I’d like to think) I simply try to embrace everything scripture says regardless of whether or not I can easily make sense of it. But I don’t have any difficulty making this “jive” with anything else. Simply put, James tells me God does not tempt anyone to sin, and he doesn’t, and I take that seriously and believe it.

The basic Calvinist understanding is that what God has predestined and planned is entirely outside of our knowledge or experience, and that in his larger purposes, he has most certainly ordained and planned things, for his purposes, that are in fact contrary to his morals and directives.

Judah and the brothers selling Joseph into slavery; Jesus being executed unjustly due to conspiracy, hatred, and jealousy, the brutal Assyrian conquest… these are my favorite three examples… these were things that wicked people did, freely, purely due to their own sinful and selfish choices. God wasn’t dangling some kind of temptation in front of them, directly inclining their hearts, or dragging them kicking and screaming against their will to do these wicked things. They did them utterly freely.

Simultaneously, in these three cases especially, the Bible describes God had planned them for such purposes, and intended their very actions in order to accomplish his purposes. This was simultaneously their destiny, their purpose, and what God had unerringly planned for them to accomplish.

How do such things “jive” together? Can I work it out all neat and tidy in my mind? Of course not. But what I think is beyond clear is that Scripture claims a “both/and” in such cases, and doesn’t go to the “well, either the choice was free, or God intended it, it can’t be both” that our minds seem to want to do.

All three cases are quite explicitly “both/ands”, both God’s absolute set purpose and free, uncoerced, and responsible human choices. The passage in Isaiah is perhaps most explicit, going into great detail about how this was God’s set purpose to use the Assyrian for his purpose in punishment and discipline, and that this is not in the Assyerian’s mind - his own freely chosen purpose was to cause the destruction he desired… and that God will punish the Assyerian for the “willful pride” in his heart, even though it was God who “sent him”.

So in short, absolutely, even though God may well have planned from all eternity that I would fall into the various sins of which I am guilty, for the very purpose of “having mercy” on me that I might know the height and width and length and depth of his mercy… in no way was I forced, coerced, or made to sin in some way against my will. Every sin I’ve ever committed was because I wanted to do it, not because God was tempting me.

I’d encourage you to consider those references I mentioned, if for nothing else than to recognize that this “both/and” perspective is certainly there in the Scripture.

Genesis 50… “you intended evil against me, but God intended it for good.”
Acts 2…“this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”
Isaiah 10… 5 Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger;
the staff in their hands is my fury!
6 Against a godless nation I send him,
and against the people of my wrath I command him,
to take spoil and seize plunder,
and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
7 But he does not so intend,
and his heart does not so think;
but it is in his heart to destroy,
and to cut off nations not a few;
8 for he says:
“Are not my commanders all kings?
9 Is not Calno like Carchemish?
Is not Hamath like Arpad?
Is not Samaria like Damascus?
10 As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols,
whose carved images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria,
11 shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols
as I have done to Samaria and her images?”

12 When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes. 13 For he says:

“By the strength of my hand I have done it,
and by my wisdom, for I have understanding;
I remove the boundaries of peoples,
and plunder their treasures;
like a bull I bring down those who sit on thrones.
14 My hand has found like a nest
the wealth of the peoples;
and as one gathers eggs that have been forsaken,
so I have gathered all the earth;
and there was none that moved a wing
or opened the mouth or chirped.”

15 Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it,
or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it?
As if a rod should wield him who lifts it,
or as if a staff should lift him who is not wood!

God neither tempted, forced, coerced, or manipulated Judah to sell Joseph into slavery, Pilate et al to execute Jesus, nor the Assyrian to go on the destructive rampage, or the host of other examples we could give. But all of these things were simultaneously and explicitly the “intention” and “definite plan”, of God, to borrow Scripture’s language

2 Likes

I perhaps did not explain myself well, not that this is easy to explain, or even explainable, to get our heads around. God thoughts are all instantaneous, so to speak, since he is free from the constraints of time, and interacts with us and our thoughts ‘cooperatively’. Words like predestined or chose or elected are past tense and do not apply in the tensed manner as we have to use them. So God ‘lets us’ choose, in our free will, but he in his timelessness (or more correctly, ‘timefulness’), cooperatively, knew, knows and will know, and planned, plans and will plan. Makes perfect sense, right? :woozy_face: Enter aborigine, stage right.

1 Like

I would caution, briefly, about the danger of this - on what basis would I not be justified in claiming that the James passage is either mistaken, or perhaps that we don’t understand him, especially in light of Paul’s passage?

Now I am a fan of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, and of allowing those passages that are clear to shed light on the unclear, albeit in a reciprocal fashion… but simultanouesly please note that there is a tremendous danger, if we are not careful, wherein we are selecting those parts of Scripture that align with our preferences and claiming that those are obviously the clear passages… and then using those to effectively abrogate everything else Scripture says that we don’t like. But if one can (as I’ve seen some do) claim to use a “hermeneutic of love” to essentially jettison the overarching, pervasive, and ubiquitous teaching about God punishing the unrighteous… What could you say to someone who claimed to use the same method - someone who claimed to use a “hermeneutic of justice” to gloss, ignore, abrogate, or reinterpret every passage that suggested we should exercise love, mercy, or any other such sentiment?

And this is not an academic argument - there are plenty of people out there who do exactly that - they take some of what Jesus said about slaughtering the enemies of the kingdom, some passages about his holy justice and punishments, about his punishment to the goats at the second coming, etc., they claim that these are the “clear” passages by which everything else should be judged, they creatively ignore or reinterpret the “love your enemy” passages… and use that to justify all manner of hostility and hatred to “those” people. And they are claiming to follow Scripture. How do you think the folks at places like Westboro Baptist can claim to follow inerrancy etc., and embrace the attitudes they do? And if I may be so bold, they are using the very hermeneutic I think you are using - claiming one part of Scripture as “clear”, then using those preferred passages to essentially override, abrogate, or reinterpret everything else Scripture says… simply choosing a different set of passages they claim are the “clear” ones and using those to (re) interpret everything else that doesn’t happen to align to their desires, preferences, or inclinations.

I would beg us all to understand everything Scripture says as it is given to us, and then to embrace everything it says. If you can claim James 1 is the “real” starting point that gives us the basis for reinterpreting Romans 11… I see no way you could object to someone who claims that Romans 11 is the “real” starting point that gives us the basis for reinterpreting James 1?

And we hope that the intent of the smart phone is not something heinous. But judging from what we know of God, He does not set us to sin.

1 Like

I’m asking why God forces us to be disobedient and how that’s consistent with his nature? I’m asking how that’s not a round square or a contradiction? I would argue God forcing us to sin violates the law of non-contradicton based on how I define sin and omnibenevolence. They are mutually exclusive. You can claim God’s thoughts are not my thoughts, and I will agree but point out anyone can claim that about any issue anytime. I would prefer to call violations of the law of non contradiction what they are, patent nonsense. I’m not buying what you are selling.

Then I will respond by accusing you of bibliolatry. Questioning a passage from Paul is not questioning God. It never was and never will be. I don’t subscribe to plenary inspiration or inerrancy. Nor do I think the Bible is the Word of God as your heretical post seems to imply. You assert questioning the Bible is questioning God but the only true Word of God is, always has been, and always will be Christ Jesus (John 1:1). The Bible is not the Son of God. It is a witness to and a revelation of the one true Word of God. I am sympathetic to what Rodger L. Cragun wrote in regards to conservative posture on the Bible:

“It has elevated the Bible itself to equality with God. In short it has led the Church into idolatry. The Bible has become something to be worshipped. The doctrine claims that the Bible is exactly what God says and thinks in all time and throughout eternity. Extrapolating on the statement in the New Testament that “Jesus is the Word,” inerrancy equates scripture with God, expanding the Triune God to a Quartet: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the Word, the Bible.” Ultimate Heresy xxi

Calvinism is one of the many heresies inerrancy leads to. Christians spend too much time closed off from the world, locked into their own inerrant scriptural universe, forcing incompatible passages together and ascribing all manner of inhumane things to God. From my perspective, the doctrines of Calvinism are cold, insensitive and joyless (unless you won the lotto and God picked YOU – go YOU), lead to internal contradictions like the one mentioned above and also for some to the absurd view that free will and predestination are somehow compatible (by definition they are not), and though it has some scriptural support, there is a lot of scripture that does not support it.

When you have to forcefit a bunch of scripture together into mutually exclusive and contradictory categories to make sense of it, maybe it is your model of inspiration that needs looking at? You are so convinced the Bible is inerrant but how about if I hypothetically argued that God gave us an erroneous Bible on purpose? Refute me. Sure, he can’t author something “false” (and the Chicago statement has enough loopholes to make anything true) but how is that any different than us being bound to disobedience or forced us to sin by an all good Being? You are just putting God in a box. Obviously his ways are higher than your ways. You see now as in a mirror dimly lit but in the future you will understand why God gave us scripture with errors. I mean, it fits in nicely with us being bound into disobedience. Whats the best way to do that? Naturally, that task would be easy to accomplish if he gave us some bogus rules to follow. I mean if we are allowed to think free will and predestination, two ideas that mean the exact opposite of one another, are simultaneously true, I am sure we can understand how false scripture is true or sinful behavior is good and so on and so on. This is what happens when you subscribe to inerrancy.

And in your last paragraph. Are we bound into disobedience or is God just planning for people to sin. Those are two different things. Are you saying God forces us into disobedience sometimes but only judges us based on the ones we commit on our own? I’m having a little trouble following.

Vinnie

1 Like

That is a tensed, timebound word. God is not thus restricted.

if you don’t understand Scripture to be God’s word then it would be impossible to argue across such a chasm, if we have no shared basis for how we can know anything true about God. If any appeal to Scripture I make in defense of any theological belief will be met with an accusation of bibliolotry, then there is little point in further discussion.

But, since you seem to be free and generous in your accusations of “heresy” to others, i must assume you have some basis for determining what is or is not true about God’s character or any other spiritual or theological truth, in order to judge that some theological views are contrary to that standard and are thus “heretical”.

Would you mind then sharing what, precisely, is the means by which you know any particular truth about God, by which you are able to judge alternate or conflicting views as “heresy”?

according to whose definition, I would wonder…

if you’re referring to the aforementioned harmony between predestination and free will, i would simply observe that there is no effort to “forcefit” these two concepts together in the part of the reader, as if the interpreter is trying to harmonize one view from Paul with another from James when both authors clearly had different and opposing views. Rather, the harmony between free will and predestination is embraced by us “biblioidolaters” because the so-called harmony between them are presented, repeatedly, by single authors, in a single passage, often in a single breath…

you intended evil against me, but God intended it for good.”
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men
All who were appointed for eternal life believed.*
in his heart a man plans his course but the Lord determines his steps.
Against a godless nation I send him… But he does not so intend.
But Pharaoh hardened his heart… but God hardened Pharaoh’s heart…
whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness
There was not a city that made peace with the people of Israel except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. They took them all in battle. For it was the LORD’S doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle
And plenty more.

So i reject the charge that it is we bibliolotrists who are “forcefitting” two incompatible concepts together… rather, the authors of the Bible force fitted these concepts together long before I or a John Calvin were born, and they did so just fine without our help.

As such, I wonder that you would critique me for forcing such concepts together when it is the a bible writers who did so, and I am the one just blindly and mindlessly following them by fideism… They are probably far more worthy of your philosophical critique.

Vinnie, once again I find myself resonating with nearly everything you write; but I am constrained (and hypocritically so, I freely admit, since the ‘heresies’ label has often come from my own hand here too) to remind you and others here that we should refrain from labeling others as heretics. Or at least not entire established systems of thought. That isn’t to deny your points, which must and will stand or fall on their own merits. It is only to say that we (you and I, too, as a moderator) are guests in a house largely hosted by many who would hail from the Reformed traditions. Again that is not to say that @Daniel_Fisher or others here can’t do a fine job holding their own and accepting challenges. And Lord knows that He himself didn’t let his guest status at Simon the Pharisee’s house stop him from showing Simon some hard truth [I always wondered how the rest of that meal went after Jesus let loose his illuminations.] But we are here at the pleasure of those whose ground rules insist we don’t question the faith status of other Christians, which the word “heresy” pretty much does.

[remainder of content removed]

My spirit is disturbed within me; and the spirit in which my response to Daniel was offered here was not right. After asking Vinnie to not use the label “heretic”, I still essentially did the same thing myself with the pointed content of what I wrote. So I apologize to @Daniel_Fisher for that.

1 Like

I don’t follow… If you are suggesting that this is my position, or that I would ever use any words to this effect, I could only reply by humbly suggesting that this is perhaps the most egregious straw man I perhaps have ever seen?

I agree … it is an incredibly scripturally weak position to be in; so you do acknowledge then, that God does not cause evil or consign parts of his creation away toward those [ultimate] ends?

And please … in my own turn I do truly ask in humility: Could you then give me your own more accurate summary of the corrected (or entirely re-done) statement “God will do evil when he sees fit … who are we…” so that it is not a straw-man? How do you then, understand the potter and the clay parable as repeated by Paul, if not to justify the belief that some people will have been created ultimately for an eternal fate of torture?

1 Like

The predestined, elect, is Christ, as it says on the tin. All are in Him. That’s what God has set up. No fail.

So, here’s a long explanation, then I’ll give a more pithy response that hopefully gets the same idea across… I think you at I would both agree that in no way would it be right to say that God causes evil in any direct way whatsoever.

But, I think if we unpacked it, I think you and I would both agree that in some sense… God is the ultimate cause of all things that transpire, evil included…

That is, take any evil or tragedy that will occur today. Somewhere in the world, sometime today, there will be a murder that takes place. Could God have prevented it?. Did he lack the knowledge it was going to happen? Did he lack the power or ability to prevent it? I imagine you would agree with me this far, that God could have chosen to prevent it if he so chose?

Now, we might disagree as to exactly why God chide not to intervene… was it because he has intentionally chosen to allow the world to unfold without his interference? Because he has deferred to allowing human free will to continue unhindered? Or we just don’t know. But the fact remains that if had the power to prevent said murder, and yet it took place, then in some sense it was God’s will that it happen. I don’t see any way around that.

Now in a very indirect sense, would not you and I have to acknowledge That in some sense, God’s will, or his decision, not to intervene can in some sense be said to be the cause of that event? He is the one that set up the universe as he did… he is the one that knew that, short of his intervention, said murder would occur. He is the one that chose, for whatever reason(s), to refrain from such intervention in any way that would have caused this murder…

I think you would agree with me this far, no? That God did have the ability and opportunity to prevent said murder, but chose for whatever reason to refrain. In that very strict, limited, and technical sense, we would both I believe acknowledge that God’s choice not to intervene was part of the overall dynamics that led to said outcome. There were multiple outcomes that could have been realized, dependent on God’s choices to intervene or to refrain, and due to God’s choice not to intervene, said murder proceeded and took place. If so, then God chose for that to happen for whatever reason, but in no sense was he “directly” responsible for it, took away a person’s will,

So yes, in that general sense of how we talk and the general meanings, of course God does not cause evil to happen, he didn’t tempt someone to commit said murder, he didn’t take over their willl and make them an automaton, he didn’t insert some extra molecule into their brain that caused them to commit said murder.

But in the sense that I trust you and I would agree, in a much broader sense, God could be said to have been the “cause” of that event in the limited and specific sense that, having the power to have achieved literallly any outcome of what happens on said day, he still chose to allow the murder to occur. This may simply be because he chose not to intervene or act*, and this choice may be consistent with his larger pattern or habit of simply not interfering in general. But yet, the fact that he could have chosen to intervene, and chose not to, means in some very real sense that he chose that state of affairs - he could have chosen any other state of affairs to transpire, but for whatever reason(s), this is the one he chose to allow to occur.

Actually, here’s another take - if you’ve ever seen the original Star Trek episode “The City on the Edge of Forever”, Kirk finds himself back in time, with a striking position and dilemma - he discovers that the woman he fell in love with dies (and history progresses as normal), or that she could be saved from an accident - but she would lead a peace movement that would delay the American entry into WWII, allowing Hitler to develop the A-bomb, etc., etc. Untold destruction and problems.

Now, armed with this knowledge, and the limited physical power he has even as a human - KIRK finds this choice before him - to intervene (technically to let Bones intervene), and save Edith’s life, or to refrain from intervening (technically keep Bones from intervening), allowing Edith to die, and thus restore the normal timeline. At this point Captain KIRK has a choice to make - he has the knowledge and the ability to choose one of those two outcomes. In one very real sense (given the science fiction involved), The decision is Captain Kirk’s whether Edith will die or not, whether the Nazis will win WWII or not. HE gets to make that choice.

So, if we assume for the sake of the argument all the science fiction involved… who would we say “caused” the Nazis to lose WWII? Was it all the various combined choices of Roosevelt, Churchill, Eisenhower, etc., etc.? Or did Captain Kirk “choose” to have the Nazis lose, rather than win, WWII? Clearly, it is both… but Kirk’s choice not to intervene and save Edith’s life would not have interfered with anyone’s free will. He did in fact choose that particular outcome - he consigned, if you will, the Nazis to defeat in WWII. But did he do so in a way that in any way bound anyone’s freedom, forced anyone to do something against their will, etc., etc.?

Essentially, as I follow that story, the situation placed Kirk for one moment, regarding one decision, in the very place that God exists and has his being - always, over every single situation, every single choice - God can choose to intervene or choose not to. To that extent, and in that particular sense, he chooses and is responsible for the outcome - just like Captain Kirk was in that one particular choice.

But choosing between two alternate possible timelines by making a choice as to whether or not to intervene does not force, coerce, manipulate, or otherwise destroy anyone’s free choices, no? Whether the one making the choice is Captain Kirk, or the God who made the universe. Just that the latter probably has a few more opportunities to choose to intervene should he so desire.

Can you go with me thus far by chance?

Yes … pretty much so far so good. Will maybe have more comments and reactions a bit later today. I do vaguely remember that Star Trek episode - being something of a ‘Trekky’ myself.

Yes.

I’ll come back with other comments or reactions later. Starting to get ready for church over here. But I look forward to good continued discussion.

Let us agree on some initial premises and assumptions first, then I will happily give an answer, but I would like to make sure we’re in agreement.

Firstly - can we agree (even if for the sake of the argument) that "some people will undergo an eternal torture? I know that even this is a controversial biblical belief in this forum, but if you’re asking me the question - can we assume even if just for the sake of this present argument the traditional doctrine of hell, that some people who live will find themselves in hell as it is traditionally understood?

Secondly - can we agree that God is all-knowing? That he truly knows all things, unerringly, including the future, what I will have for breakfast tomorrow and next year, and whether or not a certain person will or will not choose Christ 100 years from now or not… and that he unerringly knows what is called “middle knowledge”… i.e., he knows unerringly all things that will happen in the future if he intervenes in manner X, and he knows unerringly all things that will happen in the future if he refrains from intervening in manner X?

Thirdly - can we agree that God actually is powerful enough to intervene so as to effect real changes into the course of history. He can use supernatural power, angels, and the like to subtly change the course of events in ways that, while not interfering with anyone’s free will, nonetheless can change the course of history? He could have, for instance, shot a few neutrons into the early earth such that as things unfolded I would have been born in Ireland rather than the United States? Little accidents, coincidences, other things entirely undetectable but which can change the course of history?

If you could agree with me thus far on the above 3 points, I think I can continue and give you a good outline of how I would explain my understanding of Paul’s words above - otherwise I think there wouldn’t be enough common ground and I fear we’d just be talking past each other. So, could we agree thus far?

Regarding your three points: (briefly re-summarized below)

  1. Some will undergo eternal torture.
  2. God is omniscient across and through all time, past and future.
  3. God is powerful and will effect whatever he wills to be done (by whatever means).

There are a lot of other points I would lead with first (before your #1) in any theology. You have my agreement on points 2 and 3. And it isn’t even that I am necessarily disagreeing with you even on point #1. I just don’t feel I have the biblical warrant to follow you there, and feel I have plenty of biblical warrant to be suspicious of any who likes to push that particular point. So I guess that means I’m withholding affirmation on point #1, but I’m also agnostic about what “eternity” even means and so am not in any position to dispute much about that point, as stated.

I would also come back to you with a couple points that seem even more pressing to me.

Do we at least agree with each other that:

  1. God’s defining attributes are always characterized by justice, love, mercy, compassion, and that nothing he does (however it looks to the recipient(s) at the moment) is ever done in the absence of, or in spite of those final motivations? I.e. - if he is punishing you, it is for your ultimate good, not for your ultimate destruction, much less never-ending torture?

  2. God has granted us a capacity (even in our sinful state) to recognize and know at least enough of these things (justice, love, mercy, compassion) to be able to see those things in God and in others and to be able to appreciate them, and cultivate them (with God’s essential help) in ourselves? And that we furthermore can recognize and deplore the absences of those things (many of the evils), even if we become blinded to some or much of them? Essentially - we are given enough tools so that when scriptures tell us to “judge for ourselves…” or “taste and see…” or “does not even the nature of things teach you…”; we can properly be held responsible for exercising that very real capacity, and that it is not a mere illusion?

To me, the answers given to these two questions determine whether the answers to the remaining questions you pose should even be of interest. Because if I learn that the God you want me to worship is not even a good God to begin with, then the prospect of such a God’s omnipotence only lends a nightmarish quality to an already hopeless universe. With Lewis I would have to say … “If in the end the monsters must win and evil triumph, would that be any reason for us to switch sides? Let us at least go down in despair with Odin … fighting on the side of good.”

[And this does leave aside some other really important (and always intractable) theological questions that we’ve at least touched on … yes, God allows or permits evil to be done and evil things to happen, natural calamities to cause lots of death and suffering. As always - the theodicy inherent in all that and how it gets answered (or more likely, set aside) by each of us from moment to moment will also play into how those questions get answered.]

2 Likes