“To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” And, finally, I have the time to blog! I am not the only one in history to complain about not having time to write. Luther’s excuse for not writing in response to Ersasmus was lack of time. NO, I am not comparing myself to Luther. That would be like comparing Paris Hilton to Albert Einstein (PLEASE don’t read into that!). Anyway, we at An Appraisal of Folly (Durell Flood and I, Steve Carr) promised to give an answer to Greg Boyd’s S. I. N. Hypothesis. Here is the long awaited first response (hopefully the other responses won’t take as long). The entirety of Boyd’s argument can be read here.
The problem of evil has plagued philosophers and theologians alike. One of the most famous arguments was given by Epicurus. It went something like this: since evil exists, either God is not all powerful, or God is not all good. While this argument seems to have put God in a trap, it forgets that there may be a third possibility, i. e., God is all good and all powerful. Boyd’s understanding of the problem of evil has its starting point with Epicurus. He contends that the third possibility is not a viable option. In fact, he has not seen any convincing arguments for a third possibility, to which I conclude: either Boyd has not read any good arguments, or Boyd obstinately refuses to be convinced. This, actually, is not my conclusion; it is really an oversimplification of Boyd’s problem with the third possibility of the problem of evil. I only said that to point out that Boyd’s arguments are really an oversimplification. The biblical data does not give us an either/or like the Epicurean argument; rather, it gives us a both/and. Evil exists, yet God is BOTH all powerful AND all good.
With all that being said, my contention is 1.) Boyd’s arguments are an oversimplification of the reality of evil and an all powerful and all good God; 2.) there is no need to assume that the existence of evil and an all powerful and all good God violates the law of contradiction; and 3.) the biblical evidence suggests that God has sovereignly ordained all things that have and will come to pass including that which is evil. In the responses to follow I hope to demonstrate these things.
Boyd begins by stating, “I contend that animal suffering is an evil that needs to be accounted for by theists who believe that God is all good and all powerful.” I have not read all theists, and I most likely have not read all the same books that Boyd has. The theists (mainly Reformed authors but also Roman Catholic and Evangelical ones as well) I have read have not specifically mentioned animal suffering in their writings; however, they do not exclude it. When the Westminster Divines stated that God “governs all creatures, actions, and things, from greatest even to the least,” I would suppose that they accounted for animal suffering. Especially since they cited Matt. 10:29-31 in the proof texts. This text we will return to shortly.
One problem I have with Boyd’s argument is his lack of biblical proof. Now Boyd claims to be a biblical Christian, yet when he states that animal suffering “is an evil that should be avoided and remedied when possible,” he offers no biblical proof for this. He makes this claim based upon the fact that developed societies think this sort of behavior is wrong. What developed societies do is hardly the basis for building a case for the morality of a certain action. If Boyd claims to be a biblical Christian then he should let the Bible be his moral and ethical guide. I can think of several examples in the Bible that would lead us to believe that cruelty to animals is wrong; one of them would be Deut. 25:4.
This is not the only problem Boyd has. He makes the broad sweeping claim that animal suffering is an evil. Is it really? Is ALL animal suffering an evil? (Did I mention Boyd has a problem with oversimplification?) Are we to assume that when an owl snatches a mouse from the ground and eats it, that is evil? Is it evil when a mother bear inflicts suffering upon another animal because it was endangering her cub? I love to hunt and fish, and I have inflicted suffering on many Pikes and Walleyes, was that evil? Was it evil for me to shoot a deer? Was God being evil when he told man that they could eat of the animals as well as the plants? (Gen. 9:3) What about the animal sacrifices that God commanded the Israelites to make? (Lev. 1-4) Was God being evil then? Evil is an ethical word; in order to use the word evil we need to define it in biblical terms otherwise we end up calling evil, good and good, evil. I think Boyd needs to seriously rethink his argument and maybe qualify what he means by animal suffering. I think it is clear that not all animal suffering is an evil; otherwise we must call God unethical.
After making generalized (oversimplified) statements about animal suffering, Boyd gives us three options for who is to blame for animal suffering. “So,” he says, ”if we accept that God is the Creator of nature, and if it’s true that nature sometimes (often!) makes animals suffer, then it seems we have to either: a) hold that God is responsible for animal suffering, hence not all good; b) hold that God is all good, but animal suffering is necessary; or c) hold that free agents are responsible for animal suffering.” Once again Boyd skirts around that third option. Why does he do this? Is it so hard to come to terms with the sovereignty of God? The Biblical Data is clear: God is ultimately responsible (but not culpable for evil) for animal suffering AND He is all good. Animal suffering is necessary only in respect of God’s general decree of providence. I will grant the term “free agent,” although I use it in a more restricted sense, i. e., the will is free to choose but is bound to only do evil, (Rom. 8:7) and it can only operate within God’s set decrees. (Eph. 1:11) Those who are cruel to animals are responsible for their own cruelty and they should be justly punished. The free agents that are not humans, i. e., devils, have been known to inflict suffering onto animals, e. g., when the legion of devils went into the herd of swine and drove them off a cliff into the sea (incidently, though, it was Jesus who granted them permission to do so). However, should we conclude that every time an animal suffers without human involvement it is devil related? I mentioned Matt. 10:29 earlier. In that passage it seems like God has sovereign control over the life of a sparrow. I am not sure what exactly Boyd would say of that passage, but he just might say that that passage is relating to us God’s perfect knowledge of the present. The only problem is that the passage in its entire context is future related. We are not to worry about what might happen to us in the future becuase God has control over even the most minute details.
Christians should not take part in animal cruelty. It is lamentable that people kill for the sake of killing, or inflict harm for the sake of sport. But these actions are not outside the sovereign reach of God’s providence. Neither are the deaths of countless sparrows who fall to the ground, and neither are you. Isn’t it comforting to know that God sees you as more worthy than a sparrow? Isn’t it reassuring to know that God holds your times in His hands? (Ps. 31:15)
“I am not sure what exactly Boyd would say of that passage, but he just might say that that passage is relating to us God’s perfect knowledge of the present.”
-Why am I JUST NOW thinking of Spaceballs?
-In what you’ve posted it seems that Boyd realizes he’s in a corner so he flees to another corner.
“I love to hunt and fish, and I have inflicted suffering on many Pikes and Walleyes, was that evil?”
-Don’t forget racoons, Sven. A few of them, even. Pigeons, too.
Oh the carnage…
“Animal suffering is necessary only in respect of God’s general decree of providence.”
-None of God’s decrees are necessary. God is absolutely free in His decrees, and no necessity is laid upon Him.
Droll,
I did not mean that God is not free in His decrees. What I meant was whatever God decrees happens necessarily.
-Steve
Ah…
I’m still not getting your wording. But if you mean for certain will happen, then fine.
Whatever God decrees will certainly happen.
Doesn’t that limit God’s soverignty? I mean, isn’t God sovereign enough to change his mind?
Take 2 Kings 20 for an example… He decreed one thing and then, did something else. Seems like God can change his decrees anytime he wants, so His decrees will only certainly happen if he doesn’t change them, right?
Jiang,
Thank you for joining us again.
You are not taking into account the perfection of God. James 1:17 teaches us that God is without change, and Hebrews 6:17 teaches us that his counsel is without change as well. If God were to change in any way, whether it be his nature or his will, it would suggest prior imperfection. God is perfect and His ways are perfect.
You are also not taking into account that the Bible was written to accomodate to human language. God appears in many places in Scripture to have human qualities (eyes, ears, hands, voice, etc.) but it is clear that God is not human in any way, “God is not a man, etc.” God did not change his mind; he spoke one thing and another thing happened, but God’s decree from all eternity was not affected.
So, are you able to answer any of my questions on this particular passage in 2 Kings 20???
In truth, I do take into consideration God’s perfection (I’m not suggesting otherwise). If God is perfect (and I believe He is), then He can do anything he wants–including how He decides to respond to us as humans. Maybe using “change His mind” is terminology you don’t like because it is emotionally and theologically charged (i.e. God doesn’t have a mind like we have a mind). Consequently, maybe we can just look at the passage God has given us in 2 Kings 20 and agree that God’s initial decree didn’t come to pass? If you’re not comfortable using terminology as mentioned above, maybe we could say that God is sovereign enough to do as he pleases–even if that doesn’t fit our presuppositions from Western Christianity? After all, who are we to put the God of the Universe in a theological box to say definitively where God’s sovereignty and perfections end?
Romans 11:34-35
“Is there anyone around who can explain God?
Anyone smart enough to tell him what to do?
Anyone who has done him such a huge favor
that God has to ask his advice?”
P.S. Also, have you ever met Mr. Boyd or been to the church he teaches at? Just curious, ’cause I’ve never met him, but after seeing his website and seeing the various ministries they offer in Minnesota, I can’t help but wonder if you just base your criticism of people on something you’ve heard other people say or you’ve read of that person. If we did that of others, we might jump to the conclusion that someone like Martin Luther was worthless to the cause of Christ because he has some very “interesting” writings on Jews (for example). Or, for that matter, John Calvin and his aggressive persecution of Anabaptists is well recorded. Can we truly “judge a book by its cover”, or is it more accurate that God weighs the heart?
Jiang,
What I am not comfortable with is how you use the “change his mind’ terminoligy. I think God’s initial (secret) decree came to pass. You mistake God’s revealed decree for His secret decree, i.e., what God says to His people, vs., what He has decreed from all eternity.
I find it interesting that you accuse me of judging a book by its cover and then you do the same to me. On what basis do you charge me of having my pressuppositions based upon Western Christianity rather than biblical reflection? Tell me, Jiang, if you can how you suppose that I am putting God in a theological box? You do not know the books I have read, the time I have spent studying God’s Word, and the service I give to God.
Yes, I do not know Greg Boyd personally; I don’t have to. I have read the things he wrote and have visited his website. It is true; I have not been to his church, nor do I have to. Greg Boyd is a heretic, and he is leading thousands of people astray. I say that based upon HIS WRITINGS, and not upon heresay. Whatever good he may have done I commend; his heresy I condemn, and I do not say that lightly. You my friend are treading upon thin ice if you hold to the same teachings as Boyd. I am writing these articles out of concern for people’s souls. I firmly believe that Boyds teachings will lead people to Hell. He does not believe in the God of the Bible, but a god of his own making, nor does he preach the true gospel, and Pauls says that those who preach another gospel are to be eternally condemned. You can live in your own little tolerant, post-modern dream world if you like, but the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, unchangeable God of the Bible is not the God of your world.
Well, I base my knowledge of you on having met you in the past, as well as upon your writings/teachings. And, excusing any behavior because you think someone else is doing it, is still excusing it. I do not doubt your sincerity for the Lord or service to God! I’m truly sorry for getting you so upset… please forgive me.
I write these things out of a strong conviction that blasting people we don’t know is not Biblical, but rather arrogant. I know I’ve had times I was so sure my theology was “right,” only to be reminded that “the log” in my eye is bigger than “the speck of dust” in my brother’s. Jesus could blast others like the Pharisees because He knows their hearts. We don’t have that luxury, nor do I believe that we’ve been put on Earth for this task. Obviously, if you see nothing wrong with it after prayer, then disregard this note. I could totally be wrong.
In answer to your questions… the main reasons I suggested that it is easy to put God in a theological box is because most American Christians do so. The books you’ve quoted as having read on your blog, resources you’ve used in your teaching/leadership activities, etc. have a lot to do with Western Christianity. There’s nothing wrong with your dependence on these people, but I suggest that it’s a limited viewpoint and leaves room for other Christians who have different “theology” from yours to possibly have insights you’d never consider since you’re an American Christian surrounded by reformed thinking and books.
Few Christians in South America, Africa, Asia, and other places worry about Predestination or “reformed” thinking. In fact, many of the “reformers” were Western, so why wouldn’t I suggest your viewpoint is Westernized Christianity? The very theology of God’s “secret decrees” is Western, not a teaching that anyone would get if they read the first Disciple’s writings in the Gospels. Where do you even pull that idea, since it’s not even in 2 Kings 20?
This type of theology makes it more difficult for the average “Joe” who picks up the Bible and wants to know what 2 Kings 20 means to understand it–unless he goes to seminary or asks a good Calvinist to explain it to him.
I’m not convinced that God gave us His Word so that we’d hatch all kinds of theology. Granted, it’s very to have some theology in that is recorded extra biblically in the Nicene Creed and other early Christian writings. I can’t help but think that everyone, no matter how much intellect or education needs nothing more than God’s Word (spoken or written) and His Spirit working to come to know God. Certainly it might be beneficial to draw insights from saints of old to encourage the average “Joe” in his walk with Christ. Yet, if he never knows of them, but only grows in love of God, following the lead of Christ, and stays in fellowship with other Christians his entire life, then he is a true disciple of Christ.
I know hardly anything about Mr. Boyd. Maybe he is a heretic. It IS possible he is leading people astray. I don’t rule that out, since I’ve never been to his church or sat under his teaching. In any case, I challenge you to do just that before you sit in judgment of him. Every person, especially those in the faith, deserves that much–and he’s only a little over an hour and a half drive from you! I think it behooves you to see if you can find out if Mr. Boyd is leading anyone TOWARDS HEAVEN. I have met people who have told me that Calvinism has turn them off towards God and they’ve left the Church (i.e. Calvinism has led some people towards HELL). Hmmm… wait, that just means they aren’t predestined, right? Likewise, why worry about people being led to hell at Mr. Boyd’s church, if they don’t have any choice in it anyway?
In conclusion, I guess I find it discouraging that you so quickly dismiss others (including me) because you find questions about God challenging… and you seem like you are so sure that someone doesn’t believe in the God of the Bible simply because I ask a few honest questions. Again, how do you know, since you can’t see my heart (or the heart of anyone else, either)?
Instead of berating me, I’d love some answers to my questions, if you have the time. If not, I wish you God’s blessings in your zealousness for God. May He reveal many insights into His Word as you strive to follow Him.
By the way, if people are coming to faith in Christ, growing in love for him and others, is this a false gospel? Since WHEN did Paul include Calvinism and understanding of God’s knowledge as “the gospel”???
I challenge you to find a biblical definition of the Gospel of Christ and see if various churches you dissagree with theologically are preaching this gospel. If not, then I would agree, that is a false gospel. But if a church has some funny ideas about baptism or sacriments or hierarchy and is still preaching Christ cruisified for the forgiveness of sins alone, then let them alone.
“But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.” ~Phil. 1:18
Jiang
“I do not doubt your sincerity for the Lord or service to God!”
-How do you know a good tree? Will a good tree produce bad fruits?
“I have met people who have told me that Calvinism has turn them off towards God and they’ve left the Church (i.e. Calvinism has led some people towards HELL). Hmmm… wait, that just means they aren’t predestined, right? Likewise, why worry about people being led to hell at Mr. Boyd’s church, if they don’t have any choice in it anyway?”
-What is Calvinism?
“Western Christianity”
-What’s this thing you refer to as Western Christianity and why does this have such a negative connotation?
-Would you find it odd to be zealous for something you don’t know? Would it be crazy for one to say “I love Adolf Hitler. He so sound in his thinking and love for his country.” And then when that one is asked what Adolf believes concerning those things, that one says he doesn’t know, but he affirms his love for Adolf Hitler and rehashes the same statements again. Is not that one out of their mind?
“Jesus could blast others like the Pharisees because He knows their hearts. We don’t have that luxury, nor do I believe that we’ve been put on Earth for this task.”
-Read Galatians and say the same. Do you think that Paul was kidding around when he said that he wished they’d emasculated themselves? Calling down curses upon those who proclaim another Gospel? How about when he accused Peter of hypocrisy (hey, just like Jesus!)?
“Obviously, if you see nothing wrong with it after prayer, then disregard this note. I could totally be wrong.”
Proverbs 16: 25 “There is a way which seems right to man, but its end is the way of death”
-A pair of folded hands doesn’t make it right, Jiang. Steve doesn’t think that praying wrongly makes sin right. Possibility of sin doesn’t make it sin.
-For the record, Steve did answer your questions concerning the 2 Kings text.
“I challenge you to find a biblical definition of the Gospel of Christ and see if various churches you dissagree with theologically are preaching this gospel. If not, then I would agree, that is a false gospel. But if a church has some funny ideas about baptism or sacriments or hierarchy and is still preaching Christ cruisified for the forgiveness of sins alone, then let them alone.”
-Jiang, you seem to be one who has something in hand, even enough to take on the job to start admonishing people to do things. Jiang, is the Gospel even knowable let alone able to be stated in your belief system which affects how you deal with us? Oh wait, you could be wrong…
“I do not doubt your sincerity for the Lord or service to God!”
-No, you just insinuate and accuse!
-Jiang, you never answered my earlier question. Are you a cymbal player in an orchestra?