http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AcQ8vrSrcbxzZGs2cXg1Z185NGhocTZxaGdz&hl=en

I had a reply to post but I seem to be getting some internet error. A 404 and no permission on the server or something. So thanks for the fun.

Wayne

I enjoyed your ranting a lot and would love to have a beer with someone who shares both my last name, and my interest in theology.

Warren P.
[same last name as you. I wonder if we're related.]

Every once in a while the blog software will encounter an error when trying to post your comment and you may lose the entire content you’ve just typed out. I recommend typing your comments up in Word or in an email editor.

The best option is to type it up in Gmail in “plain text”, then copy and paste it into the comments box.

Just a heads up.

It was nice to meet you face-to-face this morning.

I’ll make my comments brief – I’m not trying to swing the pendulum too far one way or the other – although sometimes it is necessary as a corrective on way or the other provided that it finds a way to find its rhythm without swinging to extremes.

Part of this would mean that we need both a theological interpretation of Scripture and a Scriptural informed theology – there is no definite starting point because no reader is ever purely objective. It is a matter of maintaining this dialectic of Scripturally-infused-theology and Theologically-informed-exegesis such that the church would keep the best of its traditions alive while leaving room for innovation as the Spirit leads. Thus, issues of doctrine and exegesis are never static – they are living and dynamic, as is the Word, as is the Church.

I am still here. This has been a very busy week. It kept me away from my computer. I must admit I have been enjoying our discussion, although I often feel a little out of my element. You are obviously more ‘well read’ than I. Truth is I probably wouldn’t remember quotes if I did read them. It has been fun and educational though.

Regarding your first post; I do not disagree with the quote by Vanhoozer. I certainly agree that Christians in the West have lifted doctrine high and far too often read the Bible as a text book. However, I do not believe the answer is to swing the pendulum to the other side (as is usually our reaction). I believe the answer lies in stopping the pendulum in the center, where it belongs.

There is, in fact, nothing I take particular issue with except the idea that the narrative of the Bible is the MOST important thing. I believe, it is not a matter of either/or, but both/and. One is not MORE important than the other. Both are EQUALLY important. I honestly don’t understand why we Christians always have to lift one thing above the other (it happens in every sphere). Is it so hard for us to admit that we must have both? It’s called balance. It’s a simple concept but oh so hard for us to master.

If we concentrate on doctrine as being more important than the story of the Bible our faith becomes academic. We have plenty of knowledge in our heads but it seldom, if ever, reaches into our hearts. We end up like the Pharisees, living by the letter of the law but never really understanding its spirit. We may live righteous lives but Jesus never reaches us where we really live, in our hearts where true transformation happens. In the end we have nothing to offer the world because they are looking for answers that work not merely information.

However, it is equally as dangerous to set aside the letter of the law because we believe the spirit is more important. We cannot lower doctrine so we can concentrate on the story of God’s love for us. We live in a world full of ‘God’ stories. Today’s culture tells us that all of these stories are equally relevant. “It’s okay if your story works for you, but it doesn’t work for me.” Doctrinal truth is the only way we can distinguish which story is actually true.

The real danger here lies in the fact that the letter of the law is easily ignored altogether. Anything becomes acceptable because the real point of the Bible is to show us how much God loves us. “God loves me; He certainly wouldn’t expect me to live in a relationship where I get no fulfillment (the alternative would be to fix it).” “God made me a homosexual; how could He possibly expect me not to live out the desires He put in me?” And now we take explicit commands and write them off because they do not fit within OUR interpretation of the God’s love story. The truth of the gospel is lost within a myriad of voices crying about the legitimacy of their pain and how God’s love story reaches them without ever calling them to change. Jesus words to the woman caught in adultery were, “I don’t accuse you either, go and don’t sin anymore.” I wonder if this is the danger John Piper sees when he calls liberal Christians back to the Bible. That is not to defend Him. Perhaps he has gone too far the other way.

Allow me to offer a contemporary example. As you may have guessed I read The Shack. I may be one of the few who read it BEFORE deciding I didn’t like it. It was presented to me as a book that pictures the ‘God story’ in all its glory. I knew there was controversy surrounding it and intentionally stayed away from anyone talking about it because I wanted to decide for myself. I read it with an open mind. But I also read it with a critical mind.

Presenting the Father as a black woman didn’t concern me. I wasn’t upset about the possible ‘irreverence’ of the way the trinity was presented. I was pretty okay with the book until I got near the end. What bothered me was the fact that Mr. Young seemed to go out of his way to present God’s love at the expense of His justice. Anything that might picture God in an unsavory light (ie. the big bad man upstairs watching to catch us doing bad) was intentionally omitted.

This is especially evident in the chapter where God and Mack discuss the difference between expectations and expectancy. In this chapter God says to Mack, “I have no expectations of you, I never have.” I may not label this as heretical but it is certainly not biblical. Jesus Christ did not die on the cross because God had no expectations of us. He died for the precise reason that God does have expectations and we are not able to live up to them. That, to me, is a greater testament to the love of God than that He never expected anything of me.

It could be said that Jesus met all of God’s expectations and therefore in Christ God has no expectations of Mack. However, this too is not biblical. Paul says, “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” Where there are no expectations there is no fear. In the book of Revelation Jesus sends messages to seven churches. The call in the majority of those letters is to repentance. If you do not repent, “I am coming quickly.” These are not words spoken without expectations.

The Shack spent 26 weeks on the New York Times best seller list. This is no surprise to me, as it presents a God who loves fully but expects nothing. Just the kind of God our society wants to believe is real. He loves me just the way I am and never asks me to be accountable for anything. That is indeed an easy God to accept. It is, however, not the God presented in the Bible. (I do not think the Shack is either heresy or garbage. It does offer a perspective on the overall story of the Bible. However, I personally would be very careful to whom I recommend it.)

I bring this up, not because I want our discussion to go in another direction, (seems to me we’re already going in enough) but simply to illustrate what happens when we decide the ‘story’ is more important than doctrine. Right biblical doctrine MUST be allowed to interpret the overall story. One is NOT more important than the other. Both are EQUALLY important. Finding the balance; ah, now there’s the rub.

Wayne

Moreover, humans are the authors of sin. We are responsible for it and the destruction is causes.

Our response to the horror of our own making should not be “how could a just God allow such things to happen?” Our only response can be “Lord, have mercy! Forgive us sinners!

As someone who studied history in university, I concluded that any attempt to fully explain the horrors of the past ends up watering them down. Historians must speak for the victims of atrocities, for those rendered voiceless on the slaughter bench of history. However, historians must be wary of claiming to have the definitive explanation for the causes of an historical event. It is important to hear the stories of the Khmer Rouge and the Rwandan genocide and to understand the context, the people involved, etc. Yet, once we posit a definitive historical explanation, we assume that the matter is settled and that we can close our books and move onto the next topic. When we close the books and move on, we are silencing the voices of the voiceless.

A similar effect results from our attempts to rationalize our belief in a “good and sovereign God” and the “existence of evil”. We cannot attempt to justify God when humans are the ones who need justification. When asking “whence evil?” we need only look in a mirror and admit our culpability and turn ourselves toward our crucified and risen Lord, the one who conquered sin and evil. Our ultimate comfort is in our faithful Savior.

The issue of human free will always arises in discussions about theodicy – how can humans be free if God is sovereign? Does God force humans to do things? Does God foreknow every possible human act? Again, I don’t find these questions to be helpful and our faculties of reason don’t provide much comfort in the answers they suggest. I am not interested in metaphysical discussions regarding God’s will vs. human will. We are better served by focusing on divine and human action because God’s action is revelation (he he communicates with us), and human action is our everyday experience.

I do not believe in neither a deterministic view of God because such a view actually limits God’s sovereignty. Furthermore, in such a view, one often ends up understanding divine action and human action in terms of competition – as if there were a conflict between the actions of God and humans. Moreover, I do not believe in view that suggests that divine and human actions are complimentary.

Nevertheless, divine action and human action are certainly related: “The divine act makes room, leaves open the possibility for man’s act. That possibility is not absorbed or destroyed by divine superiority, but created, called forth, by it” (Berkouwer, Divine Election, p.46). God calls humans to action; his grace creates the space for our response. God does not oppose human freedom – he calls it forward, he makes space for it.

This is a relational understanding of freedom. It is not the modern/Lockean conception of individual freedom that we hear in so much political rhetoric (It’s my right! etc.). It is not a “secularized and autonomous concept of freedom” (Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God, p.323). Herbert McCabe echoes this point: “God’s activity does not complete with mine. Whereas the activity of any other creature makes a difference to mind and would interfere with my freedom, the activity of God makes no difference. It has a more fundamental and important job to do than making a difference. It makes me have my own activity in the first place”. Our freedom comes not because of we are autonomous beings, free from external constraint; our freedom comes from our relationship with God.

Our true freedom is found only in Christ. Human freedom comes from our submission to the God who redeems us. In addition, this freedom points to the future where we anticipate the liberation of all creation when heaven and earth are joined. God never forces his sovereignty over humans. He doesn’t need to because he is God and he loves us. McCabe notes, “The idea that God’s causality could interfere with my freedom can only arise from an idolatrous notion of God as a very large and powerful creature”. I would add that what McCabe is commenting on reminds me of the abstract notion of God’s sovereignty as a kind of absolute and pure power that Piper suggests.

In the space God created for human action, we messed things up. I do believe in the fallen and lost state of humanity; humans are corrupted by sin so thoroughly that we are enslaved to it. We do evil through our own will. We eat the apple in defiance of God’s instructions – we seek to be autonomous from God and exert our will accordingly, and we eat to our own destruction. This is not part of God’s plan – he doesn’t have his hand in the cookie jar just so that he can share the good stuff with humans (read: God does not ordain evil). Humans put our hands in the cookie jar to get the cookies on our own terms. This is not what God wants for his creatures – he wants us to enjoy things on his terms, and to give out the cookies how he sees fit. However, our cookie theft was not part of his plan (as if we could even imagine what that would be, nor should we). There is no need to attempt to rationalize God’s sovereignty and human free will because they are not opposed.

The only solution to the problem of evil is to become enslaved to Christ In so doing, we become free – free to love God, our neighbor, and ourselves, and to enjoy God’s good gifts.

Yes, there are certainly semantics involved in our discussion.

I hear Piper, Joe, and you using “ordain” in the sense of causation.

I understand evil to be a manifestation of sin. Evil is the poisoned fruit of original sin. In the words of Augustine, evil is “privatio boni” – the absence of good.

There are a number of good things in your posts Wayne – I appreciate your attempt to hold God’s sovereignty and human free will in tension. I also appreciate your Trinitarian approach (I wonder what Piper thinks about “The Shack”…)

I apologize for my disjointed and rushed nature of my response, but thanks for bearing with me. Please indulge me in a bit of a personal confession/rant before I start with a more sustained theological response.

I am not a divine psychologist or neuroscientist, so questions about whether or not God “foreknew” whether or not Adam and Eve would sin, etc. are of little interest to me. Frankly, I find them quite puzzling and unhelpful. Such questions operate with a medieval understanding of the Imago Dei in which humans best reflect God’s being in their rational abilities (and to answer Joe, this is the root of Calvin’s epistemology; it isn’t the sterile rationality of modernism, but it does clearly prioritize rationality).

I doubt that the “mind of God” (i.e. the “thing” that God presumably uses to “plan” things) works the same way as the human mind. And I really don’t care how it works – I can only marvel at God’s majesty. Questions about the mind of God (foreknowledge, election, etc.) are beyond human capacity – they are questions that we should not attempt to answer because they are supra-rational (and they cause our heads to hurt when we try). At the end, these kinds of questions are nothing more than an exercise in futility – reason becomes the new tower of Babel. We end up echoing the futility of Homer Simpson’s question – could God make a burrito so hot that even he couldn’t eat it? Rather than revel and tremble in the revealed mystery, we attempt to rationalize God (and, as a result, domesticate him).

More helpful (and comforting) that trying to understand the machinations of divine reason is to look at how God relates and responds to humans. God’s primary and final response to humans is Christ. It is the act of divine sacrifice that points us to God’s being – God loves; God is love. Love is supra-rational. I know that I am loved, but I don’t need or want to attempt to rationalize it lest I diminish its potency.

This is why theology is about seeing how we are addressed by God and asked to respond to him in love. We attempt to know God not in order to tabulate information about God (God is omniscient, God is omnipresent, God is…etc.) but to be transformed by our knowledge of God – to be conformed to the source of that knowledge. This kind of knowledge is a spiritual knowledge that cannot be reduced to reason.

I should clarify that this is not a form of Christian Gnosticism that Michael Horton deftly unveils in his book “Christless Christianity”; reason certainly has a place in human thinking and in theology. However, we cannot allow it to supersede revelation. This is contrary to the approach used in evangelical circles where doctrines are taught as if they are facts that can be proven – think once again of Piper’s call for liberal Christians to “come back to objective, Biblical truth about God and Christ, and return to reality-based morality” as if this truth and reality were self-evident to the clear and rational mind.

And this is why I take issue with theodicy because it “usually involves an attempt to justify God at the seat of human reason” (Berkouwer, Providence of God, p.233). All theodicies over-estimate human reason.

In our discussion, Wayne, theologically, we are dealing with two distinct (and yet intertwined) doctrines – doctrine of God and anthropology. I am not going to try to pull them apart and deal with the separately, so please forgive any conceptual muddiness.

For Piper, the question is the re-articulation of classical theodicy, a project began by Leibniz who ranks right behind Descartes as one of philosophy’s great rationalists, to understand how the existence of evil and the goodness of God could be reconciled rationally.

I understand the problem of evil to be simply this – we are sinners. The problem of evil is an existential and personal problem that calls us to confess our sin before God and to pray “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner”. If we take this confession seriously, then we cannot occupy ourselves with the question “whence evil?” because it distracts us from confessing our sin and seeking God’s forgiveness.

Theodicy overestimates human reason and attempts to justify ourselves to God and “usually concludes with an empty abstract God”, a God made by human reason, in our image. Allow me to quote from Berkouwer at length “The basic problem of theodicy is defined by the manner in which one approaches reality. One cannot mount from reality to the righteousness of God, because reality can only be known through revelation…Any attempt to approach Go from the basis of empirical reality [read: reason] makes his righteousness a deduction of human reason. This makes all natural theodicy, in spite of its apologetic intent, worthless and unacceptable. Instead of preparing the way for fruitful conversation, theodicy only suggest that we try again to reach God by way of natural understanding” (The Providence of God, pp.249-50).

Basically, my concern with theodicy is that it is human-centred and it offers an abstract notion of divine sovereignty. The revelation of God’s sovereignty is in the cross of Christ. God’s glory is rooted in the cross, in weakness and vulnerability. God doesn’t need humans to defend him via reason; God defends himself through his revelation in Christ. The love of God is beyond human comprehension and it is more powerful than sin and evil. The Gospel is all the theodicy we need; it alone is the answer to the so-called “problem of evil”.

Therefore, contra Piper, I stand in good company when I echo, along with the saints of Christian history, “Deus no causa peccati”, the correlation of which is the human confession of sin. Again, Berkouwer is instructive: “It is nowhere more obvious that the notion of God as the author and cause of sin is an utter blasphemy that in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ” (Sin, p.256).

Simply put, humans are the root of evil – this is what we admit when we confess our sin – we are responsible and culpable for sin and evil. Nik Ansell deftly argues this point in his article: “The Call of Wisdom/The Voice of the Serpent” (available at http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Ansell-Serpent-CSR.htm)

I want to briefly return to the original topic of this post before commenting on your posts.

Our reading of the Bible and our evaluations of what “counts” as the Bible are directly influence by our hermeneutical and theological approach. This is where I take issue with Piper. He reads the Bible mining for theological truth. He definitely prioritizes reason – I submit the following quotation from his website – “to liberals in Christendom: Come home to objective, Biblical truth about God and Christ”. I don’t know why he needs to qualify (or even equate) Bible truth with the adjective “objective”. The Bible never claims to be objective – it is divine revelation!

The point I’ve been trying to make is that the Bible is not simply a book of propositions that are rendered more complete or understandable by a more literal translation of the source texts. Piper disagrees – translations are the Bible; paraphrases are commentaries of the Bible.

I find that Kevin Vanhoozer (a conservative, evangelical theologian) is instructive here – “To interpret the Bible truly, then, we must do more than sting together individual propositions like beads on a string…Information alone is insufficient for spiritual formation…What the Bible as a whole is literally about is the theodrama – the words and deeds of God on the stage of world history that climax in Jesus Christ” (pp.108-109, “Drama of Doctrine”).

Vanhoozer wants to focus on the story, the narrative, of the Bible as primary. It is the story that is most important, not the theology we derive from it (this is not to say that Vanhoozer thinks doctrine is unimportant; he certainly does, as do I!) Rather, the point he is trying to make is that pastors and laypeople alike often confuse our reading of the Bible with the reading of a textbook, as if the story were secondary to the lesson being taught or the information conveyed.

This is why I think the Message is the Bible – because it is concerned with a faithful telling of the Biblical story in order to confront and comfort us with the story of God’s love for us.

I guess Joe has left the building, but I’m happy to continue this exchange with you.

I’m in the process of moving, so I’ve been able to hang-out online too much.

But, I hope to respond to your posts tomorrow sometime.

Jason

So I picture it happening like this (it helps me understand):

Papa, Jesus and Sarayu (The Father, Son and Holy Spirit for those of you who haven’t read The Shack) were hanging out doing what triune God’s do. At this point there’s nothin’. No time. No space. Nothin’. Just them. Jesus speaks up and says, “Hey you wanna do somethin’?”

To which Papa replies, “Like what?”

Jesus says, “I don’t know … somethin’.”

They sit around quiet for a while and then Sarayu says, “You know what? You two are awesome. Let’s tell someone.”

Jesus asks, “Like … who?”

To which Sarayu replies, “well, we’ll have to make ‘em first.”

So the one of them sit down and put together a plan. First they decide what the full purpose will be. Then they decide the very best way to fulfill that purpose. Perhaps they storyboard the whole thing and tweak different parts until the whole plan is perfect. They even decide what part each of them is going to play within the plan.

During the planning stages (as I imagine it) they look at every possible plan. Tossing plans away left and right until they come up with the plan that most perfectly accomplishes everything they desire. I don’t imagine it takes all that long. They are God and time doesn’t even exist yet (In reality they probably come up with the perfect plan instantly. But the illustration helps with my explanation).

In reality that would have been an amazing number of plans to choose from considering everything was a part of the plan including our thoughts. When you consider the billions of people and all of their thoughts and actions and interactions, not mention the animals and such that’s a pretty plan. Ours is an amazingly big God.

Next we need to understand that all of the planning is done before any move is made to implement it. They don’t get the beginning they like and then start that rolling while they perfect act two. The entire plan is decided upon before implementation, and then the ENTIRE plan is implimented at once. From our point of view God is still moving and the plan is still taking place. However, from God’s point of view outside of time it’s already done and beginning at the same time. Hence a day is like a thousand years and vice versa.

That is an overview of the entire process as I see it happening. What I would like to concentrate on for our purposes is the choosing of the plan. To do that let’s just concentrate on one infinitesimal part of that plan. Let’s simply look at the story of Adam and Eve and the serpent. Now let’s suppose They had the following possibilities.

#1: Eve comes upon the serpent hanging around the tree. It speaks and she chooses (by her own FREE will) to run away from the talking snake.

#2: Eve comes upon the serpent hanging around the tree. They have their little conversation and she chooses (by her own FREE will) to say, “you know I’m really not interested. I’m gonna tell on you.”

#3: Eve comes upon the serpent, has the conversation and chooses (by her own FREE will) to take the ‘apple’ back to Adam. He listens to her and chooses (by his own FREE will) to say, “I’m not interested. I’m gonna tell on you.”

#4: Eve comes upon the serpent, has the conversation and chooses (by her own FREE will) to take the ‘apple’ back to Adam. He listens to her and chooses (by his own FREE will) to say, “wow, that looks tasty babe. Let’s have it.”

By now you probably get the point. When God chose a plan our free will choices were a part of that plan. That plan will unfold the way He planned it to. We will choose exactly what we were planned to choose, but we will choose it by our own free will because that was a part of the plan.

So, God is responsible for evil because He chose/implemented (ordained?) a plan in which evil takes place. We are culpable because we freely choose the evil.

Does He use evil? Only in as much as there is evil (that we are culpable for) within the plan He has chosen to accomplish His purposes.

So there you have it. Does it have holes in it? Quite possibly. Some days it works for me. On other days I am not quite sure. This is the first time I have written it down. You think about it differently when you do that. I welcome your thoughts. I am sure they will help me to refine my own beliefs, which are always growing.

God bless,
Wayne

I am not talking about some compromise in which we believe that we are only free to choose evil until we are saved and then we can choose the good. I believe God works in the heart of every man and woman and that any one of them could choose to move toward God at which time He would give them more information and more choice.

I do not believe that simply gives us the illusion of choice, but in reality we are moving according to His puppet strings. Neither do I believe that God sovereignly moves in the circumstances to get man to choose as He wishes. I believe that EVERY TIME man is presented with a decision he has the free will to make a real choice.

This is easier to demonstrate than the sovereignty of God because we can all feel it to be true. One of the reasons the sovereignty of God is so difficult to understand and believe is we feel the freedom of our wills in every decision we make.

It is also evident within the Bible. Joshua stand before the people of Israel and gives them a choice, “Choose today whom you will serve.” Peter and Paul in the book of Acts repeatedly encourage the people to choose to Jesus.

David kneels in a cave where Saul is going potty and is encouraged, by his men, to kill Saul . He freely chooses not to do so but simply cuts off a piece of Saul’s robe. Ruth is presented with a choice to stay in Moab or return to Israel with her mother-in-law. She freely chooses to accompany Naomi.

Not only are is man free to make choices, He is fully responsible and culpable for the results of those decisions. David sees Bathsheba from a rooftop, decides to commit adultery and is held responsible for the consequences that ensue.

Jesus Christ speaks to each of the churches in the book of Revelation and presents them with choices for which they will be held responsible. Jesus judges the sheep and the goats based on how they chose to treat the people they came into contact with on a daily basis in their lives.

Every human has been or will be presented with the choice to walk in the will of God or in his/her own will. Every human being freely makes the wrong choice and so will be held accountable.

I believe every human being is given a second chance in Christ to rectify the first wrong decision of self determination. They may not be presented with Jesus, but are presented with information that would lead them closer to that choice. If they reject that information none more is given. If they accept they are lead closer.

Ultimately every human being will stand before God to answer for the decisions he has made throughout his life. NO ONE will be able to accuse God and say, “but You made me choose this.” In the end God will be seen to be both holy and just as He judges man. Not because He makes it so but because it WILL BE SO.

The Bible is packed full of examples of people who make numerous choices on any number of issues. The decisions they make always have consequences. They are always held accountable for those consequences.

I believe these are true and free choices because I believe the God the Bible presents would not coerce or otherwise fool people into making decisions that conform to His will. The God presented in the Bible is loving and just. He is full of grace and mercy. He would not hold man responsible for decisions He in fact forced man or tricked man into making.

SO

God is responsible for evil because He planned it from the start. Man is culpable for evil because he chose to it.

I believe fully in the absolute sovereignty of God over all of His creation. I also believe in the absolute free will of man. I believe them both because I believe the Bible teaches them both.

The issue is NOT which one is more true. Both are true. The real issue is how is it possible for both to be true. How can two totally opposite and antithetical truths exist. How can God possibly be sovereign over my choices if I truly have free will.

It seems to me Christians have been wrestling with this question throughout our history. Often one truth is sacrificed to make the other more understandable or palatable. One is lifted up and concentrated on at the expense of the other. One gets shrivelled because be can accept the other easier.

I don’t think we have this choice. The Bible doesn’t give it to us. Both are fully and totally true and must be acknowledged as so. Any explanation that leaves one or the other stunted and doubted must in the end be rejected.

So, can I reconcile the two? On good days, I think so. On bad days; not so much. Can I explain it? You tell me when I’m done. That’s next.

Does God ordain evil? There might be some semantics involved here. How do you define ordain? What exactly do you consider to be evil? I don’t know whether I agree with Piper or not.

I believe evil was a part of the plan and not something God simply for which God made provision. God did not have Jesus waiting in the background in case the whole thing went awry. Jesus was standing ready at the gate because God knew things were going to go bad. He knew they were going to go bad because that’s how He planned it.

Adam and Eve eating the ‘apple’ was neither a surprise nor a simply something God saw coming. It happened because God planned it. Cain killed Able because God planned it. Pharoah enslaved the Israelites because God planned it. Herod killed all the Bethlehem babies because God planned it.

If all of this means that God ordains evil then the answer is, “Yes He does.” Do I believe this makes God culpable for evil. Because that is the real question. My answer, “No, I do not.”

A related question that I believe came up is, “does God use evil for good purposes or does He simply turn evil to good?” I already mentioned Pharoah being raised up by God, but let’s take Hitler for an example. I don’t think there are many people who would suggest Hitler wasn’t evil.

I believe Hitler was a part of the plan. Old Testament prophecy mentioned the rebirth of Israel. Hitler was the direct motivation for there being a modern day Israel. No Hitler, no Israel. So did God merely see Hitler coming and say, “shiny, this’ll get the job done?” Or did God raise Hitler up for the express purpose of moving His people back into the promised land?

The Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign over the nations. He raises them up and tears them down according to His purposes. That means the nation of Germany under Hitler was raised up by God and one of the purposes for that was to bring Israel back into being.

That would seem to me to indicate that yes God uses evil for good purposes. Does that mean God is culpable for evil (again the real question)? Again my answer is, “no.”

Why not? Because a God who is good cannot, by definition, BE culpable for evil. So how do I work out God’s being responsible without being culpable? I may be totally out to lunch. If I am I’m sure you’ll let me know.

I believe that God is sovereign over everything He has created. Which means He is responsible for everything that happens within His creation. When you take it all to it’s final destination that is where you must end up. Unless you are willing to admit that something went wrong that God could forsee but couldn’t change. I am not willing to concede that.

I believe He is absolutely sovereign over everything. I believe that nothing happens that He did not, not only forsee, but also plan.

However, …

Re: your quote from Nicholas Lash.
I agree with that. I have in the past argued just that with someone who was dead set on the ‘jot and the tittle,’ which is why I changed my tune on the Message. However, I also believe (and am sure you would agree) that the actual words are important. It is the words that convey the meaning from which we understand those events and patterns of human action. I am usually middle of the road in my theological preferences (as you will see).

Without the words that were written we have no understanding of the message that is being conveyed. Red, means different that green, which means different than wet. If we don’t pay close attention to the words we lose the meaning.

However, the words were only a tool to convey a meaning and if we concentrate so much on making sure we have the exact right word we can just as easily lose the meaning. The text becomes a dead thing that brings no life. It all becomes academic.

I think the problem arises when we try and say that one is more important than the other. We cannot communicate without words. But if we become so tied to the words we end up also not communicating because we get the wrong meaning the person was trying to convey.

Which is why blogs like this get so long, I think, we each end up concentrating on certain words the other person used rather than trying to understand the underlying message they are trying to send. Ah the beauty and follies of communication.

As I have said, I am going to give the Message another chance. I have definitely written it off too quickly. And I do thank you for showing me the light.

Wayne

Lots to chew on here! I know that I’ve already taken up so much space on a web page that isn’t mine…but we’ve definitely moved beyond the scope of the original post. The conversation is important to continue…do we keep going on this thread, Michael?

To briefly respond to your posts (thanks once again for your candor), let me reiterate that I never questioned God’s sovereignty over evil; I questioned Piper’s claim that God is implicated in evil and that God can ordain evil. More to come after the weekend…

Going back to the original issue, I wanted to share a quotation that can help refocus our thoughts around the original question about the Message. I think this quotation helps us to see what is ultimately at stake in biblical hermeneutics:

“The practice of Christian faith is not, in the last resort, a matter of interpreting, in our time and place, an ancient text. It is, or seeks to be, the faithful ‘rendering’ of those events, of those patterns of human action, decision and suffering, to which the texts bear original witness” (p.90 – Nicholas Lash, “Theology on the Way to Emmaus”.