So many debates between evangelical theological camps revolve around Theodicy, or the theological attempts to vindicate our omnipotent, omnibenevolent God from the problem of evil. Within this debate, the emphasis is often on the relationship of God’s predetermination and foreknowledge to evil. I am going to challenge that emphasis!
Are Determinism and Foreknowledge Really the Problem?
See the below chart’s “gray” area, which represents God’s eternal planning realm. Most reformed (Calvinistic) folks will invoke some form of compatibilism to insure that, although God unconditionally planned everything with His own intentions, the causal agents would somehow be the immediate, self-determined cause of evil (think Genesis 50:20). Many Arminians, on the other hand, will simply swap the two items in the gray box to make sure that God decrees to create these agents before planning everything, so the plan is conditioned on the agents and their foreseen actions. Molinists may fall on either side of these two schemes, adding one more layer of contemplation in God’s mind. Open theists simply refuse to have a gray area at all.
In order to seek more unity between theological camps, we have to realize that the “gray” section is not where the problem really lies. It is the “white” section: The here, the now! In the present time, God creates causal agents who perform evil. He knows all the current evil they are doing (He is omniscient). He has the ability to prevent it (He is omnipotent). Yet, He chooses not to.
Setting the issue of foreknowledge to the side, we have to answer the question, “Why doesn’t God stop evil right now?” Either (1) He wants to stop it, but cannot, or (2) He can stop it, but does not want to. #1 removes His omnipotence; #2 makes Him partially responsible, similar to how we would blame a more-than-able by-stander for not helping a victim of an accident. Yet, I think we all have to agree that the answer is #2? God wants something else more than He wants to prevent current evil. God interacts with His universe in alignment with the demands of His own nature and the objectives that He is achieving. These objectives may include preserving freedom of choice, demonstrating justice, building anticipation and faith in the vessels of mercy for a final victory over the vessels of wrath, and more. I don’t know every objective. None of us do. We aren’t God! Regardless, we all have to come to grips with the realization that God allows humans to exercise their wills in a manner that conflicts with His prescribed laws.
The Free Will Argument
Some camps will claim that the reason for such a permission is that God cannot change free will once He commits to having it. First, such a constraint is a self imposed constraint, leading back to God as the responsible agent for such an order of things. Second, this is not a Biblically sound proposition. Most free will advocates agree that we will never be able to sin again in our glorified state. There are apparent will-setting moments that can fix a future state of our will.
I offer up the following propositions:
Proposition #1:
The crux of the free will / predestination debate is not whether God predetermined the course of human choices in eternity past, but whether God has the ultimate power over choices right now.
Proposition #2:
God holds the power and ultimate decision to permit, suppress, restrain, or improve upon the human will, either through providence or direct intervention, for outcomes that are both negative and positive; gracious and judicial, blessing and cursing.
Scriptures that support Proposition #2:
POSITIVE:
- Ezekiel 36:26-27 (ESV) – “I will give you a new heart … and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.”
- Proverbs 21:1 (ESV) – “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.”
- Jeremiah 24:7 (ESV) – “I will give them a heart … for they shall return to me with their whole heart.”
- Acts 16:14 (ESV) – “…The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.”
- Philippians 2:13 (ESV) – “for it is God who works in you … to will … for his good pleasure.”
- 2 Corinthians 8:16-17 (ESV) – “… God, who put into the heart of Titus the same earnest care …”
- Numbers 23:11-12 (ESV) – “I took you to curse my enemies, and behold, you have done nothing but bless them … “Must I not take care to speak what the LORD puts in my mouth?””
NEGATIVE:
- Exodus 4:21 (ESV) – “…I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.'”
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 (ESV) – “… God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false …”
- Deuteronomy 29:4 (ESV) – “… the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear”
- John 12:39-40 (ESV) – “Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart …””
- Revelation 17:17 (ESV) – “For God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.”
* To see a more comprehensive list of the categories God has exhaustive sovereignty over, check out my article “My Rediscovery Of Sovereignty Out of the Word of Faith Movement” – here.
These passages support the notion that God can change the human will if He wants to; the key clause being: “if He wants to.” Why doesn’t God change everyone’s will so that they only do good? Because He does not want to! His objectives for creation, along with the demands of His very nature constrain Him. Nothing ultimately constrains Him but Himself. If the Arminians are right, and God planned the agents before planning the world, He did so because He wanted to. If Calvinists are right, and God planned the world before aligning agents with it, He did so because He wanted to. In either case, God is ultimately responsible for the way the world is, and He could have created it to be different, had his objectives and self-constraints been different.
The Best Possible World?
I am convinced that ours is the best possible world, given such divine preconditions. Perhaps God’s nature requires other attributes to be demonstrated to His creation, such as justice, wrath, holiness, mercy, triumph, and patience. These can’t be demonstrated without permitting evil. One example of God providentially using evil choices to accomplish good ends is found in the story of Joseph:
Joseph’s brothers self-determinately chose to conspire against him:
Gen 37:18: “[Joseph’s brothers] conspired against him to slay him. … And they took him, and cast him into a pit.”
God permitted this conspiracy to send Joseph to Egypt:
Gen 45:5: “But don’t be distressed or angry at yourselves because you sold me here, because God sent me ahead of you all in order to deliver us.”
Joseph knew that his brothers’ evil intentions were incorporated into God’s good plan:
Gen 50:20: “As for you, ye devised against me evil — God devised it for good, in order to do as at this day, to keep alive a numerous people” (Young’s Literal)
The moral of Joseph’s story is: God has a providential purpose in allowing evil choices. Nothing is random or out of His control. Extending this beyond Joseph’s story to my own story gives me great assurance that God is working great things even in my darkest seasons.
Conclusion
In the grand tapestry of theological discourse, the threads of foreknowledge and determinism have often sparked spirited debates among differing camps. However, amidst the diversity of perspectives, there lies a common ground—a shared commitment to magnify the sovereignty of God. Given the above propositions and Biblical testimony, we must approach theodicy debates very humbly, knowing that no Christian position is free from theodicy, because no position is free from sovereignty. While the Arminian who dislikes irresistible grace may charge the Calvinist, “How could a loving father not enable his kid to freely choose which path to run down; toward either the cliff or the open pasture?”, a Christian Universalist can just as easily challenge the Arminian, “How could a loving father not apprehend his kid against his free will when he foolishly chooses to plunge off the cliff?”. At the same time, the atheist can challenge both of them, “Why would a good father even take his kid anywhere near a cliff?”. Rather than allowing the intricacies of theological nuances to divide, let us unite in the awe of a God whose sovereignty transcends our finite understanding. In acknowledging this, we will find humility, recognizing that our theological frameworks are but feeble attempts to comprehend the majesty of the Divine.
Click the SUBSCRIBE button below to get notified by email when new articles are released.
Click the Middle Ground Theology FACEBOOK GROUP link below to join the conversation!
The Middle Ground 