. . . And My Response to them.
It has been suggested (By Bethyada– and may I just suggest that for a really complex discussion on this issue that uses lots of fancy words, you should go to the debate that took place right here on this blog by Starwind and Bethyada) that I continue without Vox in my discussions. I have hesitated to do this, because I really would like to know where Vox is coming from before I continue, but perhaps this is a wise idea nevertheless. Vox was “grateful” in early December and lately he has busy (reasonably so) Irrational Atheisting, so who knows when he’s going to get back to this.
It has also be suggested (by Vox) that Omniderigests make a habit of taking a passage and wrongly say that their way of reading it (God is in detailed control of the World) it is the only way, when there are in fact many ways of reading it.
Very Well –
I just started reading Second Thessalonians and I came across this passage in chapter 2 (starting at 11.)
Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Now I, as a compatibleist, take this to mean that God causes Non Believers to not believe the truth (by sending them a lie) but that they are also responsible for their non-belief. So in this passage we have Free Will and God Causing Sin. A very compatibleist couple of verses.
How do you God is Not In Detailed Control Folks read this passage? I know you have a different way – what is it?
18 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 14, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Dominic Bnonn Tennant
J—
I’m not sure that libertarians see a need to affirm that God does not exercise omniderigence in this specific example. Remember, most of them don’t believe that God is incapable of omniderigence—just that he does not routinely exercise it. I think most of them do see room for exceptions, and this passage might be one of them. Of course, we could probably put pressure on this, since the passage speaks of an evidently lasting delusion sent to a great many people—so if this is an exception in terms of omniderigence, it’s a significant one, with equally significant implications in terms of God’s character, and his dealings with people.
Incidentally, where does the term “omniderigent” come from? I can’t find it in any dictionaries or encyclopedias.
Regards,
Bnonn
February 14, 2008 at 4:10 pm
jamsco
Interesting comments.
Omniderigence is a term that Vox Day made up (you got to me through Vox, didn’t you – or was it Bob?)
In his book (The Irrational Atheist), Vox defines it this way:
. . . Hence the term omniderigence, which I define as: the infinite use of unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-controlling; all-dictating. Less formally, one can think of it as über control-freakdom
or ultimate puppet-mastery.
He get that from this:
DERIGO -rigere -rexi -rectum [to set straight, direct]; of placing [to order, dispose]; milit. [to draw up]; Transf., [to direct, aim, guide]
—Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid, University of Notre Dame
February 14, 2008 at 4:12 pm
jamsco
And we certainly could and should put pressure on them if they go with the special exception way of getting out of it.
February 14, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Dominic Bnonn Tennant
I got to you through Bob :)
I’m not sure why Vox feels the need to invent confusing new words when existing ones have sufficed for centuries. What is wrong with exhaustive determination, or just plain old determinism? Making up words implies that Vox has so little knowledge of the position he is critiquing that he is unfamiliar with even its basic terminology. Either that or he just wants to look clever, which would not surprise me having read some of his frankly conceited work.
February 15, 2008 at 4:09 am
bethyada
Bnonn nailed it.
That we believe in free will does not imply that we can consider all possibilities, or that God sets up the world and leaves us to it. Rather that we can (and do) think and do some things that are contrary to God’s desire.
Note why God sends them the strong delusion.
The point is they refuse God and choose unrighteousness, so God gives them more of what they have already chosen—falsehood. God prefers mercy, but if one rejects mercy there is only judgment. By allowing great deception God can effectively say at judgment, “Look how far you were willing to choose evil.” There own hearts are revealed for their abject wickedness, which is demonstrated more the further they are allowed to descend into sin.
And the passage does not actually say that God makes their mind choose evil whether they want to or not, rather that he sends the delusion. Others choose not to believe the delusion.
jamsco, your interpretations of passages makes me wonder how well you actually perceive the Arminian position. Think like an Arminian (for the sake of the argument) then show how it is internally inconsistent or incompatible with Scripture.
On a side note, the passage makes me think evolution or, more recently, climate change. And omniderigence is a cool neologism.
February 15, 2008 at 4:10 am
bethyada
who’s Bob?
February 15, 2008 at 10:14 am
didasko
Bob = http://fundyreformed.wordpress.com/ I believe.
As to the issue of omniderigence (just fitting in with the conversation here) in 2 Thess. 2, I think bethyada has a reasonable line of thought on the topic of man’s rejection and God’s accepting of that rejection, but is missing a major contextual component. Namely the role of God in damnation and salvation as we will see throughout the passage. The key issues of this passage are:
1. The day of Christ, not yet occurred.
2. This due to eschatological events, (the mass falling away, removal of the Holy Spirit as Hinderer) not having occurred.
3. Those that fall away do so of their own choice.
4. God cements their choice.
5. God saves others.
6. After God’s salvation, the Thessalonians are to hold fast and not be swayed as in this case.
7. Paul promises God’s comfort and help in future situations.
Now, the crux of the matter boils down to three matters in light of Arminianism, Calvinism et. al.
1. Are the sinners doing so of their own volition?
–The obvious answer to this is yes. They have “pleasure in unrighteousness.” vs. 12.
2. Is God responsible for this sin?
–Once again the obvious answer to this is no. God never tempts man with evil (per James etc.). Clearly those in this passage have chosen sin over truth and love of Christ (vs. 12). However, God has overridden their free will in this occasion and will not allow them back into the choice for salvation (vs. 10-12). This is a key example of God’s intervention in the affairs of mankind, but on a much larger scale than typically displayed (as this will be a mass falling away of mankind rather than the individual case). In the case of Esau and Jacob, Pharaoh (Romans 9), the Malecite’s (See Moses), etc. God foreordained and controlled the situation to bring about his purposes by overriding personal free will. This is not God causing men to sin, but God removing the option not to go forward with the sin purposed in their hearts. After all, free will is not free, but is bound to a sin nature. (Romans 6-8)
3. God is responsible for the salvation of the Thessalonians, as well as the damnation of those in this passage. The strongest Calvinist points are verses 12-14 where God damns those by finalizing their decision to reject him, and He saves the Thessalonians by “choosing” them “from the beginning” to salvation.
The Arminian position is weak here, because the role of God has to be diminished to administrative level, rather than the judicial in order to get around the fact that God ordains salvation and damnation on groups of people, thus weakening the passage on a climactic and dramatic eschatological period. A classical Calvinist position on the passage, however, emphasizes the greatness of mans sin, the power of God’s salvation, and orders the passage to place the blame on man and give the glory to God, all without damaging the context and meaning of the passage. Lest anyone misinterpret the last sentence, I am not saying that I am reading Calvinism into the passage, but that the passage supports Calvinistic claims. I do not see how you can get around this view in light of Paul’s writing here.
Of course this passage deserves more time, prayer and expansion, but I must end here hoping that any points of contention can be resolved, and any misunderstandings of my writing viewed as my weakness of presentation, rather than confusion via God’s doctrines.
February 15, 2008 at 11:26 am
jamsco
A few comments (I am humbled that you guys put so much more time into this than I do):
Bethyada, re –
“By allowing great deception . . . ” God isn’t passive here – he sends the deception. Allowing is too weak a word.
Didasko,
Unsurprisingly, I agree with most of what you said, but I am nervous about “God foreordained and controlled the situation to bring about his purposes by overriding personal free will.”
As I have said before – I believe in free will (People make real choices that they are responsible for) but all free will is subordinate to (ordained by, determined by) God. God has no need to ‘override’ something that he has already chosen to have happened.
Am I missing something here? Is there something in this passage that suggests Humans aren’t really making the choice?
February 15, 2008 at 12:15 pm
didasko
Jamsco,
I prefer the more subtle language that I used as it is more consistent with the whole of Scripture. I would state that God can ordain something to happen, and then causes it to happen by overriding free will. I would say that Scripture is consistent in this regard.
Balaam agreed to curse Israel–free will.
God changed Balaam’s oracles–overriding free will to bless Israel.
Pharaoh hardened his heart–free will.
God hardened Pharaoh’s heart–overriding free will to free Israel.
That God can ordain and man can choose is the dichotomous nature of Sovereignty. I think that saying God causes man to sin goes much farther than God seals a man’s choice to sin to bring about His sovereign purpose.
In all things God is completely in control while allowing man to demonstrate his fallen nature.
There is so much more that would need to be said, but I may be obfuscating at this point. Brief can be better after all.
February 15, 2008 at 12:33 pm
jamsco
Thanks for your further explanation.
I’m still a bit confused.
Re:
Pharaoh hardened his heart–free will.
God hardened Pharaoh’s heart–overriding free will to free Israel.
If Pharaoh hardened his heart, how is it overriding that free will to say that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart
What exactly do you mean by God sealing a man’s choice?
I believe that God causes (ordains, choose, determines) each man’s sin, and I don’t see scripture denying this. Perhaps this is why I call myself a hyper-compatibleist.
And re: ‘In all things God is completely in control while allowing man to demonstrate his fallen nature.” Agreed.
February 15, 2008 at 9:01 pm
bethyada
jamsco “By allowing great deception . . . ” God isn’t passive here – he sends the deception. Allowing is too weak a word.
Fine, in the context I was using it it makes little difference.
By sending great deception God can effectively say at judgment, “Look how far you were willing to choose evil.”
The point is that people choose or have made their choice.
I can concede that people can be beyond redemption prior to death due to prior choices. That God can send deceptions to allow maximum descent into heinous sin prior to judgment is possible. Mercy is his desire, but if we reject mercy there is only judgment. And God judging to maximise his glory is his prerogative. I do suspect that the situation is more to warn others than a desire to increase the sinner’s punishment. They are condemned already, I don’t think God is necessarily interested in making their suffering greater solely because they rejected him, rather it is more likely that this is fulfilling other purposes of God.
February 15, 2008 at 9:22 pm
bethyada
didasko, I would take issue with a couple of your comments. In your list I can agree with all of them bar
4. God cements their choice.
Depends what you are meaning by this. I would say God meets out their judgment according to their choice, they have already cemented their own choice.
However, God has overridden their free will in this occasion and will not allow them back into the choice for salvation
But they have already made their choice
and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
They reject God therefore their minds a
re opposed to his ways, because they had pleasure in unrighteousness. God sends a strong delusion that he knows they will be deluded by because their mind is already against his.
To illustrate this: without a delusion one could argue that a sinner may complain against God saying they did not oppose him (even though they did in mind). But the delusion they believed in which is now revealed as false on the day of judgment shows them that they did in fact choose lies over truth.
It is not a criminal being sent to jail claiming their actions were acceptable, it is a criminal knowing they have acted wrongly and despising that they have been caught.
God foreordained and controlled the situation to bring about his purposes by overriding personal free will. This is not God causing men to sin, but God removing the option not to go forward with the sin purposed in their hearts. After all, free will is not free, but is bound to a sin nature.
Most of this is reasonable. But how you see it and me may be different. God can override free-will but how and when is the issue. He can prevent an action a person chooses to do but that is not so much overriding free will as being an unconquerable opponent (eg. Jacob and the angel).
Or God may prevent some thoughts entering our minds so that we never think these things. There are ideas that no human has ever had but God has.
I would change the last sentence to:
After all, free will is not completely free, but is tainted by our sin nature.
God ordains salvation and damnation on groups of people, thus weakening the passage on a climactic and dramatic eschatological period.
This is where we depart. I claim that salvation is a work of God (we cannot save ourselves). But that God saves based on our choosing him in response to him wooing us. All have the ability to say yes to God and all have the ability to say no.
To those who say “yes” God works salvation on. To those who say “no” God pronounces sentence.
February 16, 2008 at 9:52 am
Starwind
Don’t read too much into the English word “upon”. Here are two more literal renderings:
The more common English rendering is “send upon them” instead of just “send” or “send to them”. There is no Greek word in the text that corresponds to “upon” or “to”. A transliteration is “and because this send them the-Theos working delusion”
Note also the word “energeia” translated as working or influence is the same word (G1753) used in Eph 1:19 to describe the “working” of the Holy Spirit and in 2Th 2:9 to describe the “activity” of Satan. The Holy spirit does not compel belief, nor does the delusion compel misbelief. A choice remains in both.
The text implies only that God sends a working/energetic/strong delusion while the recipients do the believeing of that delusion. The text does not support that God does the believing for them or is the primary cause of their belief.
By analogy, a man wanders in the desert in search of water; God keeps offering a glass of water but the man keeps brushing it aside saying “No, I must find my own ocean of water”, and so God creates a mirage for the man to see and says “Ok then, here is what you seek”. God did not send the mirage “upon” the man (i.e. God did not “do it to him”) but rather presented it in front of the man for him to choose (as he is likely to believe his own preconceived notion) or not (in case he instead believes oceans don’t exist in the desert).
Keep in mind the context is eschatological judgement, and it’s very contrast with most of scripture indicates that God is not, as a rule, wont to lead some or any into damnation (for all you supralapsarians out there), for He takes no pleasure in anyone’s destruction (i.e. He doesn’t “glory” in it).
Also keep in mind that some during the tribulation do not choose to believe the strong delusion, rather they reject the mark and choose Jesus instead, and pay with their heads – saving belief and choice is still possible.
February 17, 2008 at 5:12 pm
jamsco
Starwind –
I am not reading into the word “upon” I am reading into the word “send”, which is an active word.
February 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Starwind
Jamsco:
I am reading into the word “send”, which is an active word.
Okay. And how does that nuance make the omniderigent case?
Consider:
In one case God sends his word and in another He sends a delusion. Both are “sent” by God, but what distingushes the recipients, and what distinguishes God’s purpose in each case?
February 19, 2008 at 10:39 am
jamsco
I like the parallel/contrast of those two verses.
God sends the delusion to those he has chosen for distruction and His ‘Word’ to those he has chosen for salvation.
February 19, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Starwind
Jamsco, I’ve seen this movie, so I’ll bow out.
August 21, 2008 at 4:46 am
Chris
I read the other post, too, but not all the comments, and these are just my thoughts.
God brings a strong delusion on them because they have already decided not to love the truth. God did not have to do anything to make them reject the truth before the strong delusion. They already gravitated to lies and rejected truth because of their sinful nature. He could have intervened and made them able to see the truth in such a way that they could not resist it, but he did not. I don’t know how he decides whose life in which to intervene, and whose not to. I just know that’s the way it is.
So at some point, to bring everything to a climax as told in Revelation, the Lord brings a delusion to those who have already rejected him (he did not intervene to make them reject him–he just failed to intervene to prevent their rejection, and they followed their natural course). The way people argue and carry on about politics and political figures, there would be all kinds of disagreement about the antichrist–not that they would have chosen a good leader over him–they would have just disagreed over all kinds of bad leaders to follow. But this delusion allows them to all unite under the antichrist and the rest of the events unfold.
One Calvinist, I can’t remember who, said something like this: I believe in free will. When people follow their free will, they always freely choose to sin. So in order to keep us from following that free will, the Holy Spirit intervenes, opens our eyes, gives us a desire for the truth, and makes us willing to accept Christ.
The Bible does say that God is able to make us do what we ought to do.
But I don’t think that God ever makes people do bad things. People who do bad things are just doing what they naturally want to do. Sometimes God even chooses not to intervene in a Christian’s life so that at some times we make bad choices–but he is not obligated to intervene at all times. Sometimes he lets us fail–which we would naturally always do without his intervening grace–because he has a plan for our good and in getting to that there are sometimes circumstances that must take place.
For example, there is a family member that we have been apart from for 10 years. I have agonized over whether I said or did the right things in our relationship. We read all kinds of books, received counsel, and prayed and always felt we were doing the right things in our relationship with her. But apparently we didn’t or she wouldn’t have disowned us. I regret so many things. Yet I realize that in the life she is living God has put people into her life that we are also now praying for. If God had allowed us to do everything right and answered our prayers to bring her back 10 years ago, or 9 years ago, she would not even know these people. Perhaps we are the only ones praying for them and writing to them. I’m hopeful that now the Lord will not only answer our prayers to bring her back to our family, but that he will save all of them.
If I could live it all over again, I would do so many things differently. But God doesn’t let us do that because sometimes when he doesn’t make us do what we should, he is still letting us do things that will result in his will being accomplished.