I honestly hope that Vox’s book is doing well (it sounds like it is), but I thought I’d bring up another section from his book that I strongly disagree with. From Chapter 15:
. . . for in considering the Contradiction of Divine Characteristics argument, we were forced to draw a distinct line between capacity and action, the confusion of which is also the root of a much more serious theological error. Interestingly, this theological error is committed by Christians as readily as atheists, perhaps even more often, as they trust in God’s plan for their lives instead of making use of their God-given intelligence and free will.
There are a variety of phrases that contain the same inherent implication about a certain view of God. Many evangelical Christians refer to “God’s perfect plan” for their lives. This concept is reinforced with children’s songs such as “He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands” . . .
These various evangelicals have an unexpected ally in Sam Harris, who declares it to be an obvious truth that “if God exists, he is the most prolific abortionist of all” due to the fact that 20 percent of all known pregnancies miscarry, and then asserts that those who believe in God should be obliged to present evidence for his existence in light of “the relentless destruction of innocent human beings that we witness in the world each day.”
What the evangelical and the atheist have in common here is a belief that because God is omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate, he is somehow responsible for these events, although Harris would qualify that with the necessary “if he exists.” And in fairness, it must be pointed out that when Harris cites Hurricane Katrina and the 2004 Asian tsunami as God’s failure to protect humanity, he is really doing rather better than the “perfect plan” evangelical who would assert that these tragedies were sent by God for some ineffable higher purpose intended to benefit humanity.
This belief in an all-acting God, who not only guides the grand course of events but actually micromanages them, is the result of the same confusion between capacity and action that we saw in the Contradiction of Divine Characteristics. . .
My Response:
(I borrow from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology)
From Job 37
10 By the breath of God ice is given,
and the broad waters are frozen fast.
11 He loads the thick cloud with moisture;
the clouds scatter his lightning.
12 They turn around and around by his guidance,
to accomplish all that he commands them
on the face of the habitable world.
From Psalm 135
6 Whatever the LORD pleases, he does,
in heaven and on earth,
in the seas and all deeps.
7 He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth,
who makes lightnings for the rain
and brings forth the wind from his storehouses.
The always-trustworthy Elihu and the psalmist also have this “confusion between capacity and action” because they do not say that God can cause lightning and wind, but that it is he who does it. It’s too bad Vox wasn’t there to point out their error as they were speaking/writing these things.
Leaving sarcasm behind, I will note that these passages do not state outright that God is acting perfectly when he chooses for a hurricane to happen, but I think it wise to assume that it is perfect. If Vox disagrees, he can take it up with God when he meets him.
Indubitably, Vox (and others) will think I’m reading these passages wrong (as is typically done by everyone who disagrees with him only all omniderigists) and that there are other ways of reading it. I’m all ears.
And I issue another challenge: show me a omniderigist who doesn’t “make use of their God-given intelligence and free will.”
One more thing: I think Bnonn has a point:
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?
The Responsible Puppet 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 18, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Dominic Bnonn Tennant
It would seem that Vox is actually some kind of deist, rather than a Christian. His god is like a detached man with superhuman powers, who just happens to have created the universe and continues to keep an eye on things, but is really rather preoccupied with doing other things. It is hard to imagine that Vox has read much or any of the Bible at all. His modus operandi seems to be to simply form an opinion on the basis of whatever humanistic ideals appeal to him, and then pontificate for long enough that he feels he has invented a justification for said opinion. He makes the pretense of critiquing evangelical doctrines without appearing to have even considered their basis. What of Isaiah 45:7? “I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.” Is Hurricane Katrina just one of those calamaties God didn’t create? Or did he maybe stop creating them at some stage after those words were written? What of Luke 13:4 in which Jesus implicitly acknowledges that events such as the collapse of a tower which kills 18 people are under God’s direct control? Was 9/11 just one of those events which God wasn’t under God’s direct control? Did it maybe just slip by unnoticed until it was too late? It seems weird that God has capabilities no greater than that of the Pentagon, but then he does have a lot of stuff to keep track of I guess.
In any case, the fact that Vox is able to publish such tripe is a sad reflection on the intellectual state of the world. His argument is so absurd that I feel insulted at having to consider it seriously enough to write a response (but I do it because I love you, Jamsco). He wants to say that God does not actually have anything to do with the death of infants in the womb. Even disregarding why he would want to say something so stupid, does he believe that babies are not people? If not, then what is his objection? But if he does, then why does he try futilely to exempt God from the “responsibility” of the death of infants, when God is responsible for the death of everyone? If Vox is to be consistent, does this not make God a “mass-murderer”? Since “man’s days are determined”, and God has “decreed the number of his months” and “set limits he cannot exceed” (Job 14:5, NIV), does it not follow that God is responsible for their deaths? He has specified when they will die—they hardly have a choice in the matter, and it is not left up to fate, whatever that is. Does God not decree the number of months of life for even infants who die in the womb? And frankly, given what a tiny minority those infants comprise of the total population of mankind through creation, who cares? Isn’t Vox missing the proverbial forest for the tree?
Vox doesn’t seem to have the faintest conception of who the biblical God is. This is sad, because he is obviously not saved—but it is much worse then such people call themselves “Christian Libertarians” and publish “Christian books”, when they have about as much in common with genuine Christians as Buddhists do with Hellenic polytheists.
Regards,
Bnonn
February 18, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Dominic Bnonn Tennant
Also, I really should proof-read better; grumble grumble.
February 19, 2008 at 4:46 am
bethyada
Bnonn, I disagree with Open theism and have some other issues with his recent book which I am currently reading, though not up to this part yet, but a claim of him not being saved because you disagree with his theology is mighty strong.
In terms of this current post, a couple of comments. Careful using Elihu as the author of sound doctrine.
That God can create calamity and does is not the same as saying God causes all calamity. God causes many things we think unpleasant when he judges. This is not evil, but to make God the author of evil acts is in and of itself what I and others object to.
Further, general comments about God’s overarching sovereignty, while consistent with omniderigence, do not demand that interpretation. I can say that God is sovereign over nations without thinking that God intended for Hitler to kill all the Jews. Now perhaps one could argue God used him to judge the Jews for some reason, but it is also possible to argue that God did not wish Hitler to behave in the way he did.
I am not saying that if God does something it is evil because if man had done it it would be evil. God can take life without it being murder, if fact he does. Man can take life without it being murder also. But man can also murder.
God is happy to answer why he continues to allow things to happen when he could stop them, but that is very different from claiming that God intends all these things.
It is not that God cannot do these things, it is that he does not do everything that Calvinists ascribe to him.
February 19, 2008 at 10:33 am
jamsco
A few clarifications – I think Vox would say that God does not kill everyone – only those he punishes – so really only a few. I disagree, of course.
He would also probably reject Job 14 as proof (If Starwind above won’t trust Elihu, it’s unlikely that Vox would trust Job, who wasn’t completely correct in everything he said).
That being said, Starwind, I do trust Elihu and I see no reason why I shouldn’t.
I agree with Starwind that we should be careful in saying that Vox is not saved. God’s salvation leaves room for great wrongness of theology. Vox claims Christ as his Saviour.
Starwind, do you think that there is Biblical evidence that God creates any non-judging calamity?
It is my belief that for God allowing is the same thing as causing.
February 19, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Dominic Bnonn Tennant
Hi bethyada—
but a claim of him not being saved because you disagree with his theology is mighty strong.
Why? Theology is what defines Christianity. If his theology is so distorted that it doesn’t resemble Christianity in anything but the most superficial way, then surely he is not a Christian. Anyone can say he follows Christ—that doesn’t make him saved. Jesus indicates that on the day of judgment, there will be many “Christians” to whom he will say, “I never knew you.”
Incidentally, why do you feel we should be careful using Elihu as the author of sound doctrine? Elihu is the only person in the entire book of Job who is not called out for spouting nonsense.
That God can create calamity and does is not the same as saying God causes all calamity. God causes many things we think unpleasant when he judges. This is not evil, but to make God the author of evil acts is in and of itself what I and others object to.
That’s fine, in and of itself. But even assuming that God does not create all disasters, Vox appears to have picked a couple of particularly bad ones and is trying to separate God from them. Why? Is there something about these disasters which makes them different from others? Is there something about Hurricane Katrina which makes it objectionable, in principle, that God should have caused it; whereas with some other disaster it is not?
I can say that God is sovereign over nations without thinking that God intended for Hitler to kill all the Jews.
No—there is an obvious contradiction here. Nations are comprised of people, and so to be sovereign over a nation, God must be sovereign over people. If God was actually sovereign over Germany in the 1930s and 40s, then he was actually sovereign over Hitler and the Nazi party members, over the Gestapo’s leadership and troops, over the civilians who elected them—in fact, over every single citizen. Therefore, regardless of how much Hitler’s actions were undesirable to God in a moral sense, there must have been some other sense in which God intended them. Otherwise, they would not have occurred. Unless, when you mean “sovereign”, you mean “hypothetically able to do something but really quite apathetic and not directing history in any way”, which I’m sure Vox would support, doesn’t appear to be the way Scripture describes sovereignty. Whatever biblical sovereignty is, it is certainly more than that.
God is happy to answer why he continues to allow things to happen when he could stop them, but that is very different from claiming that God intends all these things.
Actually, in line with what I said about Hitler, this is false. If God is able to stop these things, but he does not, then there must be some sense in which he intends them, unless you are going to descend into deism. He may not intend them directly (ie, he may not desire them in and of themselves), but he certainly intends them by merit of having a greater intention which necessitates them. If God does, in fact, have a telos in creation, there is simply no way around this. If he does not, then you are not describing the Christian God any more at all.
Regards,
Bnonn