God and Suffering: Is He Responsible? Part 2
Continuing from this post… First, I’m a determinist. Second, this is a massive debate and one that we won’t do justice to in a few short blog posts. Third, I don’t think non-determinism is a heresy, nor do I believe non-determinism is subversive to the vital doctrines of the Christian faith. But I do think that non-determinism is mistaken, and that it can have negative consequences on faith and piety, particularly as it relates to the way it addresses human suffering. So here we go…
The Biblical Data
Of the quoting of Scripture there is no end, but here are a few of the more significant passages in support of determinism:
Ephesians 1:11 “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”
Lamentations 3:37-38 “Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?”
James 4:13-15 “Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.”
Psalm 139:16 “Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
Matthew 10:29-30 “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.”
Proverbs 16:33 “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.”
Proof-texting a bunch of verses isn’t perhaps the most sophisticated way to make a theological point, but a quick look at the verses above do demonstrate that the biblical authors—both Old and New Testament—affirm the basic contours of the determinist paradigm. The Matthew 10 passage is perhaps one of the strongest for determinism, as Jesus is explicitly teaching that God’s sovereignty extends even to something as insignificant as the death of a bird, or to the number of the hairs on one’s head. The passage is all the more compelling in that Jesus is talking explicitly about the scope of God’s sovereignty—his comment is not a side comment unrelated to the main thrust of his speech. It’s very difficult to reconcile Jesus’ teaching here (and the overall tenor of his teaching at large) with non-determinism.
Beyond these passages, one can point to the scores of passages in support of unconditional predestination (most notably Ephesians 1, John 6, Romans 9). While not linked absolutely, if unconditional predestination is true, it’s hard to envision how it could exist in harmony with non-determinism.
Many of you referenced passages that demonstrate God brings about suffering (2 Kings 17:19-20, Micah 4:6, Hebrews 12:5-7, etc.). While in keeping with determinism, such passages do not prove determinism, only that God is at times directly responsible for calamity. Such passages fit (though perhaps not as comfortably) within a non-determinist framework as well.
Non-Determinism and the Logic of Determinism
Apart from the biblical data, there are two main rationales driving the non-determinist paradigm. The first is related to logic (i.e., determinism logically leads to fatalism, and a denial of moral responsibility, free will, etc.). The second reason relates to theodicy (i.e., determinism makes God morally culpable for suffering). My original intent in raising the issue was to address the effectiveness of non-determinism as a theodicy. In other words, does non-determinism really “wipe the blood off of God’s hands?” But nearly all of you who commented in favor of non-determinism did so for reasons related to the apparent logical implications of determinism. So before addressing the effectiveness of non-determinism as it relates to theodicy, let me say a brief (did I just say “brief”?) word about the logical critique of determinism.
For the non-determinist, determinism seems to inevitably lead to fatalism, eliminating the need for moral responsibility, and suggests that God is the direct cause of our evil actions. But this is a misread of the determinist position. As mentioned in the initial post, biblical determinists do not believe God moves humans like puppets on a string, or that we are not responsible for our choices. Informed biblical determinists affirm free will, recognize that our actions have consequences, and do not in any way suggest that God is the direct cause of human evil.
Determinism simply affirms that somehow, within the scope of God’s divine will, there is room for both human freedom and God’s specific sovereignty. Many determinists simply accept this as an article of faith—God says it, I believe it. So quoting scripture that affirms free will, or that demonstrates our actions have real moral consequences, does not undermine the determinist position. Determinists view such passages as coherent within their overall system. (What non-determinists need to produce are passages that explicitly deny that God is in control of all events, or affirm that much of history unfolds randomly. Such passages are in short supply). So ultimately, the debate is not between determinism and free will. Determinists affirm free will. Many deterministic theologians (Augustine, Thomas, Calvin, Luther, Edwards) have attempted (with varying degrees of success) to explain the relationship between the divine and human will. But regardless of the explanatory power of these syntheses, the fact of determinism is affirmed throughout Scripture, and—if nothing else—is a doctrine to be taken on faith, even if we cannot understand how determinism logically relates to moral responsibility and free will.
In many ways, this is not at all unlike the way in which we approach the doctrine of the Trinity. Who amongst us fully understands how God can be both three and one? Even the penetrating insights of the Fathers (Augustine, the two Gregs, Athanasius, etc.,) do not fully tap into or explain the depths of the triune nature of God. Yet the witness of Scripture leads to the inevitable holding together of these two truths. To reject the clear teaching of Scripture solely on the grounds that we cannot fully understand it, is to place human wisdom above the sacred page. Regarding the Trinity, both Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons are culpable in this regard. For both groups, Trinitarian teaching “logically” leads to tri-theism. Since the Bible clearly denies tri-theism, they conclude that God must not exist as a Trinity.
I encourage my non-determinist friends to avoid the same logical fallacy. Just because we may not be able to logically reconcile the fact of God’s specific sovereignty with human freedom, should not be grounds for dismissing the clear teaching of Scripture.
Having said the above however, I do believe there is a way to logically bring together God’s exhaustive sovereignty and authentic human freedom (see here). It’s a longer story than I will recount here, but Edwards’ Freedom of the Will is magisterial, as is Augustine’s On Grace and Free Will and On Rebuke and Grace. Frankly, I don’t find Calvin and Luther nearly as effective at this point, and I’m inclined to think that Luther’s Bondage of the Will is in some measure responsible for giving post-Reformation determinism a bad rap (see here and here). At the end of the day, all four theologians are arguing for the same basic position, but Luther and Calvin, given their rhetorical jousting with their Pelagian/semi-pelagian opponents, adopted some unfortunate semantics.
Can anyone think of any other passages—set within their proper context—that speak directly to this issue? Again, bear in mind that what we’re looking for are passages the make explicit statements about whether or not God’s sovereignty is general or specific. Ecclesiastes 9:11 is the only passage I can think of that points toward non-determinism.
Categorized as: From Gerald, Ministry, Theodicy, Theology
