Evil and Privation
(The following is an edited response to an inquiry on the topic. As with some of the other blog entries, it assumes familiarity with my major writings.)
We talked a while back about God being the author of evil in the sense that God is the cause of all things. Yet evil is a privation and not really an essence, is it not? I ask because the Bible Answer Man was arguing with a man, and he said, "Evil is not an ontological essence in and of itself. It is a deprivation, or lack of good."
We must first clearly define the problem or question. Let me see if I understand what you are getting at. You seem to imply that since evil is a privation, that since it is not a "thing" in itself, then this is inconsistent with God being the cause or author of all things. I am not certain that this is your point, but it appears to be, so I will proceed with the assumption that this is your point. If it is not, you can reply to clarify.
Now, we might say that evil does not have an ontological status like good, since God himself is Goodness, and there is no counterpart Evil. If this is what we mean, then it is biblical and true; otherwise, we would be affirming dualism, or the view that Good and Evil are two equal or almost equal self-existent eternal powers that fight against each other. From this perspective, it is correct to deny Evil an ontological status in itself.
However, this is not inconsistent with my position. In fact, it is consistent only with mine. That only Good has ontological status means that Good must be the cause of all things, and therefore it must be "good" that there is Evil (although evil is not good in itself). This is just another way of saying that God was good and righteous when he actively decreed that there should be evil, and then proceeded to actively carry out this decree.
As I have shown in my books and articles, there is no biblical or rational problem with this; on the other hand, any other view would have a hard time explaining evil, and thus must relegate it to "mystery," or end in dualism.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, On Good and Evil
Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil"
Vincent Cheung, "The Doctrine of Hell"
Gordon Clark, God and Evil
Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will
New PDF: "Kingdom First"
The "Kingdom First" series is now available as a PDF file. Please recommend it to your friends.
Download the file at:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/kingdomfirst.pdf
Kingdom First (5)
In a sermon on the same verse, Warfield writes:
How many think it would be unreasonable in God to put His service before their provision for themselves and family? How many of us who have been able to "risk" ourselves, do not think that we can "risk" our families in God's keeping? How subtle the temptations! But, here our Lord brushes them all away in the calm words, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Is this not a rebuke to our practical atheism?2
What a piercing question! Perhaps we have all been guilty of obeying the verse only to an extent (which is to say that we have been disobeying it); we have so many seemingly legitimate reservations. Of course it is our duty to provide for our families, and sometimes it pains us to see that they must do without certain things because of our service to the kingdom of God. It appears that even those of us who seem to measure up to the verse in many respects still fail when it comes to this point.
If yielding to it means disobeying God's command, then this is ultimately a carnal concern. Jesus does tell us to seek first the kingdom, and first means first. As Warfield observes, it is practical atheism to think "that we cannot trust God for our earthly prosperity but must bid Him wait until we make good our earthly fortunes before we can afford to turn to Him."3 Our Lord demands our attention now and not later, and he requires us to serve him continuously and not intermittently; he commands us to put him first every time.4
What is our ambition? Is it worldly or spiritual? Is it centered around the kingdom of God or our own little empire? As we have noticed, it is easy to "deceive yourselves" (James 1:22), and to think that you are a doer of this verse when you are only a hearer; it is easy to think that you are doing all that it says when you are falling far short of it. This is why we have spent this time trying to understand this verse better, and to unravel some of its implications for our lives.
Matthew Henry comments that obeying this verse means "making religion your business," and to "mind religion as your great and principle concern."5 Is this what you are doing? Is this what you are enforcing in your family? Does the way that you spend your money and your time suggest that you are "making religion your business"?
What are you teaching your children? Do you repeatedly tell them to study hard so that they will get good jobs in the future, or do you tell them to focus on developing biblical knowledge and character so that they will please and glorify God? Do you ever tell them to stop doing their homework to pray a while, to read a commentary, or to write a theological essay?
Again, we are not suggesting that our children should neglect their school work and other duties, but Jesus does say that we must seek first the kingdom, and first means first. We must believe that even the needed things concerning the children's education will be "added to them" if they will seek first the kingdom of God. In any case, there is no excuse for our children to know more about algebra than theology, or to know more about the theories of physics than Paul's message to the Romans.
Some parents have their children's academic career all planned out by the time they enter elementary school, if not way before that, but very few seem to plan out their theological training and character development in detail, so that they will become productive citizens of the kingdom of God.
But of course, parenting is not the only aspect of our lives that we need to be concerned about; we are using it only as an example, and as something that might expose our true priorities and concerns. We must examine every aspect of our lives to make sure that we are really seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.
2 Benjamin B. Warfield, Faith and Life (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990), p. 46.
3 Ibid.
4 Of course, this is not an excuse to neglect our duties, for some people neglect both the kingdom and their families.
5 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), p. 1642.
(end of series)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Benjamin B. Warfield, "This- and Other-Worldliness," in Faith and Life
Kingdom First (4)
Yet another way to distort the verse is to represent it as teaching a merely chronological order — that we should first seek the kingdom, but then seek wealth and other material things. This view might initially appear plausible because of the word "first," but it does not imply that Jesus is telling us to merely make seeking the kingdom the first item on an agenda that contains many other items.
In fact, from the language and the context of the verse, it appears that Jesus is telling us to make seeking the kingdom the "first" and thus the only item on our agenda. In verse 33, he does not say, "You must serve God and then Money," nor does he say, "You must serve Money so that you can serve God." Rather, he has already said in verse 24, "You serve both God and Money." Therefore, in verse 33, he is saying, "You must serve God and not Money at all."
The verse reads, "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness (active); and all these things shall be added to you (passive)." The first part of the verse tells us what we ought to do; on the other hand, the second part of the verse does not tell us some other thing that we also ought to do, but it simply tells us what will happen. The point of the entire passage is to get our attention away from material things in order to actively seek the kingdom of God.
Therefore, by "first," Jesus is not indicating that we should give the kingdom of God mere chronological priority, but that we should actively make it the sole focus of our lives, making everything else subservient to it. In other words, you have not obeyed this verse just because you meditated on a passage of Scripture for two minutes "first" thing in the morning, but then put everything Christian out of your mind for the rest of the day. To seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness would include thinking on his word all day and all night (Psalm 1:2), even while you are doing other things. There are many things competing for your attention throughout the day, and each time you must put the kingdom of God "first"; each time you must let it control your agenda, your thinking, and your behavior.
This does not mean that you must neglect or abandon some of the legitimate things in your life. Scripture teaches that it is your duty to attend to your family, your occupation, and the practical matters of life that are necessary to sustain a normal lifestyle and to function in human society. But even these legitimate things must be done in the context of seeking the kingdom of God, and one must be prepared to put the kingdom first even at their expense. Often it is because of these "legitimate" things that cause people to neglect the kingdom of God, and all the while they still think that they are seeking first the kingdom, and thus they stop being doers of the word, but hearers only.
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Benjamin B. Warfield, "This- and Other-Worldliness," in Faith and Life
Kingdom First (3)
Third, there are those who make wealth the means by which they seek and promote the kingdom of God, but they do so in a way that really makes wealth the direct object of their seeking and striving. Claiming that they ultimately have God in mind, they nevertheless center their lives around wealth and other material things, so that if they pay any attention to the kingdom of God at all, it is obviously little more than an afterthought to them.
Some are rather bold about this. I have heard several people assert that although it is true that this verse tells us to seek first the kingdom of God, the best way to seek first the kingdom is to first get as rich as possible! So what if you study, pray, sacrifice, preach, and counsel? A rich person can pay to train up a hundred people like you at one stroke!
According to them, the way to put the kingdom first is not to do anything for the kingdom right away, but to have a larger "vision," like getting really rich first so that you can make large financial contributions to churches and ministries. This is how their mind works. They are so deceived that they think this is the right thing to do, and they even think that this is what this verse is really teaching, so that they are not embarrassed to freely admit this. From their perspective, those who seek the kingdom of God through sacrifice and discipline, prayer and study, are in fact inferior in vision and in ability.
Of course, this is just an excuse for disobeying the verse. It claims that the best way to obey the verse is by doing exactly the opposite of what it commands. Jesus makes it clear that to seek first the kingdom of God means that we are not to seek after wealth and other material things, the things that the unbelievers consider most important, and the immediate objects of their ambition and desire.
Any interpretation of this verse is false that makes wealth the object of our seeking, and the kingdom as merely the means to wealth, or the excuse to seek after wealth. The verse teaches that the kingdom is the object of our seeking, and other things are at best the means by which we seek the kingdom, and we are never to turn these means into the objects of our seeking. Whether we are speaking of our job, money, education, time, skill, knowledge, and even our family, we are not to place these things higher than the kingdom of God, but we are to use these things as the means and the contexts by which we serve God and seek his kingdom. The kingdom of God is to be the direct object of our attention; any view that compromises this is false.
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Benjamin B. Warfield, "This- and Other-Worldliness," in Faith and Life
Kingdom First (2)
Second, there are those who make seeking the kingdom of God the means to obtaining material things, and wealth is still the end of all their seeking and striving. They take the verse as a teaching or even a promise on how to legitimately obtain material things from God. To them, Jesus is not saying that one should avoid striving for material things, but he is saying that the way to obtain them is to seek first the kingdom of God.
This attitude is essentially the same as the first. The difference is that instead of seeking wealth directly and apart from any Christian context, they now convince themselves that they are seeking after material things "the right way" by seeking the kingdom of God in the process.
However, this is a deception, and it contradicts the very point of the passage, which is to direct our attention and our efforts away from seeking material things, and instead to seek the kingdom of God. Jesus does not say, "Seek first the kingdom of God, so that you will obtain money and other material things."
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Benjamin B. Warfield, "This- and Other-Worldliness," in Faith and Life
Kingdom First (1)
MATTHEW 6:33
But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
Jesus says in Matthew 6:33, "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." Although its meaning seems straightforward, this verse is often incorrectly understood and practiced. Thus many people might think that they are doers of the word when they are merely hearers of the word (James 1:22).
Sometimes we think that we have already done what is required of us, and feel good about ourselves for it, just because we agree with what we have heard from God's word. Sometimes we misunderstand a verse as demanding something lower than what it does, and thus we think that we have satisfied its requirements when this is not the case. Or, sometimes when we fail to satisfy even this lower standard, we will just say to ourselves, "That's close enough." The result is that, in all these instances, we are performing far below what God's word actually demands of us, and enjoying far less of the life and power that he has promised us.
In what follows, we will consider some of the ways that people have distorted and disobeyed this verse. Then, we will also consider the correct understanding of this verse as well as some of its implications.
First, there are those who exhibit blatant and unabashed disobedience; they explicitly make wealth their object of pursuit.1 Of course, this characterizes only unbelievers, and if it characterizes your life, then you are an unbeliever, still headed for everlasting suffering in hell.
Unbelievers are accustomed to doing the very opposite of what God's word commands (v. 32). All of their thinking reflects the fact that they love "Money" and despise God (v. 24). Their typical goal in life is to attain financial riches and security. This often leads to an emphasis on the means to attaining this goal, such as worldly education and business relationships.
We expect this approach to life from unbelievers, but many professing Christians are no better. They would often admonish their children to focus on school work, but they do not demonstrate the same level of urgency when speaking to them about church work. They tell their children to study hard so that they will get good grades, get into good schools and colleges, and eventually get good jobs and salaries. But their agenda is not nearly as specific and ambitious when it comes to their children's theological studies and future in ministry.
This is because the kingdom is not first with them. Whether explicitly or implicitly, whether by instruction or by example, they instill in their children the idea that the highest goal in life is financial security, rather than to know God and to work for his cause. Of course, those who teach this to their children are already practicing the same themselves. This is unacceptable, and unbecoming to those who profess the faith. The problem is so serious that it is to be harshly condemned.
1 By "wealth," we are not necessarily referring to great prosperity, but to food, clothing, money, and material things in general.
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Benjamin B. Warfield, "This- and Other-Worldliness," in Faith and Life
The Imprecatory Psalms (2)
Righteous retribution is one of the glories of the divine character. If it is right that God should desire to exercise it, then it cannot be wrong for his people to desire him to exercise it. It may be objected that, while he claims retribution for himself, he forbids it to them, and that he has thereby forbidden all satisfaction in it to them. The fact is true; the inference does not follow. Inasmuch as retribution inflicted by a creature is forbidden, the desire for its infliction by a creature, or pleasure therein, is also forbidden; but inasmuch as it is righteously inflicted by God, it must be right in him, and must therefore be, when in his hand, a proper subject of satisfaction to the godly.
Robert L. Dabney, Discussions Evangelical and Theological
(London: Banner of Truth, 1967), 1:709-10,
cited by James E. Adams in War Psalms of the Prince of Peace
(Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1991), p. 47-48.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, The Doctrine of Hell
"Forced to Believe" (4)
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. It may be removed at any time without notice.
The article was released as a draft/preview to The Author of Sin. For the current and official version, please download the book from the online library.
We are continuing our discussion on inconsistent Calvinism, using A. A. Hodge as our example.
[Continuous creation] is inconsistent with our original and necessary intuitions of truth of all kinds, physical, intellectual, and moral. Our original intuitions assure us of the real and permanent existence of spiritual and material substances exercising powers, and of our own spirits as real, self-determining causes of action, and consequently as responsible moral agents. But if this doctrine is true these primary, constitutional intuitions of our nature deceive us, and if these deceive us, the whole universe is an illusion, our own natures a delusion, and absolute skepticism inevitable. (261)
Hodge is trying to refute continuous creation. Right now, the issue is not whether continuous creation is right, but the issue is that his refutation is terrible. Among other things, this is a spectacular display of begging the question. He says that continuous creation contradicts our intuition, so that if continuous creation is right, then our intuition is wrong, and if our intuition is right, then continuous creation is wrong.
So what? First, he fails to show that our intution is universal. My own intuition certainly does not tell me all that he is claiming here. Second, he fails to show that our intuition is infallible; we have no idea whether it is right or wrong. Third, he fails to show that our intuition is necessary. He claims that if we deny our intuition, then "absolute skepticism" is inevitable, but he fails to show that there are no other ways to avoid skepticism, or that we must reject absolute skepticism in the first place.
Then, when he attempts a positive construction on the subject, he writes:
The properties or active powers have a real, and not merely apparent, efficiency as second causes in producing the effects proper to them; and the phenomena alike of consciousness and of the outward world are really produced by the efficient agency of second causes, as we are informed by our native and necessary intuitions. (261-262)
But he fails to show that our intuition really tells us all of this (mine doesn't), nor does he establish that it is "native and necessary"; yet, he is trying to establish the biblical doctrine of providence on this flimsy basis.
Even we, if we thoroughly understand a friend's character, and all the present circumstances under which he acts, are often absolutely certain how he will freely act, though absent from us. (291)
This also begs the question. Hodge is addressing the topic, "Prove that the certainty of a volition is in no degree inconsistent with the liberty of the agent in that act." But he fails to prove anything here. Just because he inserts the word "freely" does not mean that it belongs there. I can just as easily say, "Even we, if we thoroughly understand a friend's character, and all the present circumstances under which he acts, are often absolutely certain how he will act, though absent from us; therefore, his action is not free but determined."
**
I think that's enough. Again, my purpose is not to show how bad Hodge is; in fact, he is already better than many. My purpose is to encourage you to abandon the false assumptions and poor habits exhibited by many theological writers, including many respected Reformed/Calvinistic authors. We must instead adopt a thoroughly biblical, coherent, and defensible theology. Such a theology will edify the elect, silence the reprobates, and glorify the God whose written revelation exhibits perfect rationality.
(end of series)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, "Arguing by Intuition"
(See www.rmiweb.org)
"Forced to Believe" (3)
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. It may be removed at any time without notice.
The article was released as a draft/preview to The Author of Sin. For the current and official version, please download the book from the online library.
We are continuing our discussion on inconsistent Calvinism, using A. A. Hodge as our example.
The doctrine of unconditional decrees presents no special difficulty. It represents God as decreeing that the sin shall eventuate as the free act of the sinner, and not as by any form of co-action causing, nor by any form of temptation inducing, him to sin. (211)
This is against both the Scripture and the Reformers. I recommend my Commentary on Ephesians and "The Problem of Evil." Also see Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will. In fact, even the term "co-action" would be too weak to describe God's active determination of the sinful acts of men.
It is a frightful but undeniable truth that multitudes, even in Christian countries, are born and brought up in such circumstances as afford them no probable, even no possible, chance of obtaining a knowledge of religious truth, or a habit of moral conduct, but are even trained from infancy in superstitious error and gross depravity. Why this should be permitted neither Calvinist nor Arminian can explain; nay, why the Almighty does not cause to die in the cradle every infant whose future wickedness and misery, if suffered to grow up, he foresees, is what no system of religion, natural or revealed, will enable us satisfactorily to account for. (227)
The question assumes that God sole purpose for a person is his holiness and happiness, but this is not true. It is as if this person is completely oblivious to what Scripture teaches, and what Calvinism affirms. Hodge did not write this paragraph, but he is quoting Archbishop Whately with approval. But then Whately must have never heard of a "system of religion" called CHRISTIANITY, and what it says in Romans 9 and other places.
The decree of election only makes the repentance and faith of the elect certain. But the antecedent certainty of a free act is not inconsistent with its freedom, otherwise the certain foreknowledge of a free act would be impossible. The decree of election does not cause the faith, and it does not interfere with the agent in acting, and certainly it does not supersede the absolute necessity of it. (228)
This paragraph made me laugh out loud, and I couldn't help but smile even looking at it again just now — it so badly begs the question. He says that certain foreknowledge must be compatible with human freedom, or else certain foreknowledge would be impossible. So the compatibility of the two are not logically demonstrated, but asserted by force because he is unwilling to let go of either divine foreknowledge or human freedom. As for "The decree of election does not cause the faith," either he has something very peculiar in mind that he fails to explain (I can't imagine what), or it is an outright denial of Calvinism.
There is just as great an apparent difficulty in reconciling God's certain foreknowledge of the final impenitence of the great majority of those to whom he offers and upon whom he presses, by every argument, his love with the fact of that offer; especially when we reflect that he foresees that his offers will certainly increase their guilt and misery. (229)
This is just a convoluted way of admitting that the unbiblical doctrine of the "sincere offer" is incoherent. Since Hodge falsely thinks that it is taught in Scripture, he is compelled to swallow it. But it is not an "apparent difficulty" — the problem is called schizophrenia. For Hodge, the difficulty is compounded when he considers that God foresees that the non-elect's rejection of the gospel will increase their guilt.
But the biblical doctrine is straightforward and coherent. There is no "sincere offer." God commands men everywhere to repent — the elect will obey and be saved, but the reprobates will disobey and be damned. Moreover, the reprobates were already sinful and destined for hell, and the hearing and rejection of the gospel increases that guilt, and this is exactly what God wants (2 Corinthians 2:14-16). There is no "apparent difficulty."
(to be continued)
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil"
(See www.rmiweb.org)
Vincent Cheung, The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 1
Vincent Cheung, The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, Part 2
Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will
(See www.monergismbooks.com)