Genesis 50:20
When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph bears a grudge against us and pays us back in full for all the wrong which we did to him!” So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father charged before he died, saying, ‘Thus you shall say to Joseph, “Please forgive, I beg you, the transgression of your brothers and their sin, for they did you wrong.”’ And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph wept when they spoke to him. Then his brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” But Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in God’s place? “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. “So therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.” So he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.
To an Arminian, this is simply about God using evil for good, rather than causing the evil that He uses, which in the latter case, is what Calvinism teaches.
One member of The Society of Evangelical Arminians comments: “This is an example of God turning evil caused by others, not himself, to good. They do the evil freely, and He directs it and fashions it to good. I actually think Joseph’s attempt to encourage his brothers, not to be too hard on themselves, can be reconciled with this view, that Joseph did not literally mean they were not responsible, but was encouraging them in light of the fact of God using it for good.” (SEA, emphasis mine)
Dave Hunt points out: “Furthermore, the Bible does not say that God decreed that Joseph’s brothers would hate him, desire to kill him, sell him into Egypt, and then lie to their father. It is clear that their evil intent came from jealous hearts. God foreknew their hearts and restrained and channeled their wicked desire to accomplish His will.” (Debating Calvinism, p.52)
Calvinist, James White, writes: “Their intentions were evil.” (Debating Calvinism, p.45)
Calvinist, James White, writes: “This is compatibilism with clarity: God uses the sinful actions of the Assyrians for the good purpose of judging His people, and yet He judges the Assyrians for their sinful intentions.” (Debating Calvinism, p.44, emphasis mine)
According to Determinism, God knows the intentions because He determines the intentions, without which, God would not have any idea what their intentions would otherwise be. So Calvinists paint themselves into a corner, but notice what James White says that God “uses,” which we can likewise incorporate into the Genesis 50 narrative, in that God “uses” the sinful actions of Joseph’s brothers.
Calvinist, James White, writes: “...since God judges on the basis of the intentions of the heart, there is in fact a ground for morality and justice.” (Debating Calvinism, p.320, emphasis mine)
Dave Hunt responds: “...but Calvinism falsely says that He causes the intentions He judges.” (Debating Calvinism, p.327, emphasis mine)
And if He didn’t cause all 100% of it, then according to James White, God couldn’t know it.
Calvinist, James White, writes: “How God can know future events, for example, and yet not determine them, is an important point….” (Debating Calvinism, p.163, emphasis mine)
If God merely determined 99.99% of a person’s thoughts and intentions, then that .01% could be a basis upon which to hold them morally accountable, but Determinism cannot allow even the .01%, or else divine omniscience is forfeited.
Dave Hunt responds: “White denies omniscience in his repudiation of any ‘grounds upon which to base exhaustive divine foreknowledge of future events outside of God’s decree.’ If God must decree the future to know it, He’s not omniscient.” (Debating Calvinism, p.389, emphasis mine)
This is the logical consequence of Calvinism, and make no mistake about it, Calvinism does indeed affirm that God predetermines all 100% of a person’s thoughts and intentions:
John Calvin writes: “We also note that we should consider the creation of the world so that we may realize that everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees.” (Acts: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.66, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: “First, the eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam He decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121, emphasis mine)
Therefore, according to Calvinism, God caused Joseph’s brothers to sin:
John Calvin comments: “The conspiracy of Joseph’s brothers when they sold him was a worse than perfidious and cruel crime. But, from another point of view, the cause of his being sold is transferred to God: It is not you but God who sold me, that I should give you food. (Gen 45:5). It follows then that God operates even through those who act impiously, so that they find life in death. As far as lay in them, they had killed their brother; yet from this, life shone forth for them.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.173, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: “For the man who honestly and soberly reflects on these things, there can be no doubt that the will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.177, emphasis mine)
Calvinists argue that God is not the author of their sin, despite having allegedly been the “cause” of their sin, such that Genesis 50:20 is intended to mean: “What God caused you do for evil, God meant for good.”
Calvin writes: “First, it must be observed that the will of God is the cause of all things that happen in the world; and yet God is not the author of evil.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169, emphasis mine)
Dave Hunt points out: “There is no escaping Calvinism’s teaching that by ‘God’s eternal decree’ He caused the evil in the brethren’s hearts and caused them to execute their evil deeds.” (Debating Calvinism, p.52)
Actually, John Calvin doesn’t even dispute that point, which is amazing, which even Calvin agreed:
Calvin adds: “Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God. This may seem paradoxical at first sight to some....” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.169, emphasis mine)
While Calvinism must resort to paradoxical logic, Arminianism simply infers that what man meant for bad, God uses for good, all because of God’s wisdom and omniscient foreknowledge. (Acts 2:23)
Calvin adds: “But where it is a matter of men’s counsels, wills, endeavours, and exertions, there is greater difficulty in seeing how the providence of God rules here too, so that nothing happens but by His assent and that men can deliberately do nothing unless He inspire it.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.171-172, emphasis mine)
Dave Hunt therefore asks: “If so, in preventing evil, wouldn’t God be restraining Himself?” (Debating Calvinism, p.51)
John Calvin’s reasoning cannot escape what is, at least, joint liability, such that Calvinism, at the very least, makes God the co-author of sin, when they make Him the primary acting agent. However, in terms of primary and secondary causes, consider the analogy of a husband who hires a man to murder his wife. When the crime is fully discovered, often the Hitman will plea-bargain with the Prosecutor in order that the greatest charge be brought against the primary agent, who therefore often ends up getting the longest prison term. Thus, Calvinists who wish to use the secondary-causes defense, in order to defend against the author-of-sin charge, accomplish nothing more than making God even more culpable.
Arminian, Roger Olson, comments: “Arminians are well aware of Calvinist arguments based upon the Genesis narrative where Joseph’s brothers meant his captivity for evil but God meant it for good (Gen 50:20). They simply do not believe this proves that God ordains evil that good may come of it. Arminians believe God permits evil and brings good out of it. Otherwise, who is the real sinner?” (Arminian Theology, p.100)
Calvin answers: “But it is quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing but the author of them.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.176, emphasis mine)
However, there is a significant difference. According to Arminianism, God takes the true authors of sin, and uses their motives to author righteousness instead. In other words, God doesn’t cause sin, but uses the sin of others, so that by it, sin may be undone, and that greater things may come of it. For instance, in terms of Joseph and his brothers, they intended to “put him to death.” (Genesis 37:18) However, God provided the caravan of Ishmaelite slave traders at the perfect moment, so that the brothers would be persuaded of their conscience not to kill him, but instead to sell him (Genesis 37:26-27), in order that Joseph may be taken into Egypt, and in doing so, save their family from the coming famine.
Calvin is not oblivious of the implications of his interpretation:
Calvin writes: “But the objection is not yet resolved, that if all things are done by the will of God, and men contrive nothing except by His will and ordination, then God is the author of all evils.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.179, emphasis mine)
In the example of Job, Calvin wishes to form a defense:
Calvin adds: “We learn then that the work was jointly the work of God and of Satan and of the robbers. We learn that nothing happens but what seems good to God. How then is God to be exempted from the blame to which Satan with his instruments is liable?” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.180, emphasis mine)
Should you infer that God caused Satan and the robbers to commit evil, or that He caused Satan to enter into God’s presence to incite Him to harm Job? “The LORD said to Satan, ‘Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause.’” (Job 2:3) In contrast, Arminians argue that God merely permitted it, foreseeing how He would use it for the spiritual growth of Job. Otherwise, if God is the first cause of all of these things, then how can it be denied that God would be the author of sin? In other words, how can God be the Decreer of Sin, while simultaneously not being the Author of Sin?
Calvin writes: “...do you defraud God of the glory of His justice because He works be means of Satan?”
(Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.180)
Calvin writes: “...the criminal misdeeds perpetrated by men proceed from God with a cause that is just, though perhaps unknown to us, though the first cause of all things is His will, I nevertheless deny that He is the author of sin. What I have maintained about the diversity of causes must not be forgotten: the proximate cause is one thing, the remote cause another.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.181, emphasis mine)
Calvin writes: “Certain shameless and illiberal people charge us with calumny by maintaining that God is made the author of sin, if His will is made first cause of all that happens. For what man wickedly perpetrates, incited by ambition or avarice or lust or some other depraved motive, since God does it by his hand with a righteous though perhaps hidden purpose--this cannot be equated with the term sin.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.181, emphasis mine)
As Calvin struggles to deny that God is the author of what He allegedly decreed, Lutzer weighs in:
Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer, explains: “When Satan taunted God about Job, the Lord allowed Satan to inspire evil men to kill Job’s servants and steal his cattle; he gave Satan the power to use wind and lightning to kills Job’s children.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.220, emphasis mine)
Lutzer adds: “Nonetheless, his permission necessarily means that he bore ultimate responsibility for it. After all, he could have chosen ‘not to permit’ it.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.210, emphasis mine)
Lutzer adds: “In a word, what God permits, he ordains.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.210, emphasis mine)
Ultimately, Lutzer implies that what God permits, He causes, but then again, under the paradigm of Determinism, permission is nothing more than an illusion. Therefore, Lutzer’s assessment would have been more accurately described as “what God [ordained], he [permits].” Nevertheless, does God’s permission to commit sin, make Him ultimately responsible for sin?
Why should anyone think that God was the primary acting agent behind Satan’s slander against Job and his plot to harm him? Why should we think that God was the primary acting agent behind the murderous intentions of Joseph’s brothers. It is absurd to think that God is responsible for the sin of someone else, merely because He planned to turn it around in order to accomplish good. The reason why Calvinists argue to the contrary, is because they have stubbornly embraced a definition of “sovereignty,” which requires that God has to decree all that ever comes to pass, in order to be truly sovereign.
Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, explains: “If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of God’s sovereignty, then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Perhaps that on maverick molecule will lay waste all the grand and glorious plans that God has made and promised to us.” (Chosen By God, pp.26-27, emphasis mine)
What if that “one molecule” was sin? What if someone committed an abomination that never decreed anyone to commit? (Jeremiah 32:35) What if someone committed an act that was beyond what He intended? (Zechariah 1:15) Will these molecules of sin, outside the will of God, shake loose God’s throne in heaven, and give Satan a chance to catch God off guard? Listen, God is eternal, which means that He dwells independent of time. You don’t have to worry about His sovereignty. He is omniscient and omnipresent. Nothing remains unknown to Him, nor is anything able to find a place to hide from Him. By God’s omniscient, Middle Knowledge, He not only knows what you will do, but also what you could and would do, in any situation. However, Calvinist philosophers, modern and historical, who’ve wished to protect God’s sovereignty, have extended to Him the odious origin of sin, though vehemently denying the guilt of sin, by means of secondary causes:
R.C. Sproul explains: “If is true that in some sense God foreordains everything that comes to pass, then it follows with no doubt that God must have foreordained the entrance of sin into the world. That is not to say that God forced it to happen or that he imposed evil upon his creation. All that means is that God must have decided to allow it to happen.” (Chosen By God, p.31, emphasis mine)
Then in what sense did God foreordain the sin of Adam and Eve, who were sinless creatures that God created as “very good”? (Genesis 1:31) Again, everything falls with the Calvinist trying equate permission with causing, which when examined from the perspective of the father of the Prodigal Son, does not hold up.
Does God cause what He uses? If not, then the entire perspective of the Calvinist is completely forced. To a Calvinist, God does more than just allow something. To Calvinist, God went so far as to work behind the scene to cause the entire thing, which the Calvinist feels is supported by the fact that Joseph encouraged his brothers with these words, as if, “Don’t worry! You did exactly what God scripted for you to do, and everything worked out just fine!” Now while the Calvinist tries to sort out what he really thinks, a different perspective is that Joseph is encouraging his brothers that despite their ill deeds, God was able to use the whole thing for good, not that He caused it, but that He was able to use it. Joseph is not saying that they are off the hook for what they did, because God was able to use it, but that despite their badness, God is sovereign over the whole situation in that He can turn what was meant for bad into something that yields good. Missing from the account, is the notion that God caused their badness in order to bring good out of it, but that’s what every deterministic Calvinist assumes.
Question: Did God both plan and cause human evil in order to accomplish good, or did God merely use human evil to accomplish good?
Arminianism: The latter would require “foreknowledge.” God does not cause anyone to sin, nor does He tempt anyone to sin (James 1:13), nor does He need sin to accomplish His purposes, and Arminians would argue that God gets more joy when man is faithful, but that the unfaithfulness of man does not stop God from ultimately achieving His purposes.
Question: Should we infer that what God permits, He causes?
Answer: When he permitted him to leave, who would suggest that this means that the father of the Prodigal Son caused his son to sin? Clearly, the father’s permission to allow his son leave, did not make him in any way responsible for his son’s ensuing action. Thus, we may conclude that what God permits, He does not necessarily condone or cause.
Question: Who sent Joseph to Egypt?
Answer: Due to jealousy, most of the brothers wanted Joseph dead. However, God designed an alternative. That was His plan, which was to sell Joseph into slavery to Egypt, which not only God used to save Joseph’s life, but also the lives of his family. So God is bringing something good out of evil. God is not causing the original evil; that’s already present and foreknown of them. So God takes their evil motives and accomplishes His purposes despite it, since God could have just as easily accomplished His purposes had they been faithful instead, and that’s important point.
One member of The Society of Evangelical Arminians explains:
As an analogy, if my son chooses to sign up for baseball, and means to have fun by it, and I mean for him to learn discipline by it, it does not mean that I made him sign up for it, or that I irresistibly caused him to sign up for it, or that I somehow irresistibly caused him to want to sign up for it. I’m simply taking what he desires and using it in a way that good may come of it. Here is another analogy: My son meant to go to college to party, but I meant for him to go to college to get an education. Does the parallel nature of the statement have us both intending the same thing? Obviously not! Another point that is lost among Calvinists is that God didn’t need for any of this to happen, since God could have easily brought Joseph into power in Egypt a different way, and going to Egypt at all was no necessity upon God, that is, a God who controls the seas, the rains or what have you. There is no necessity at all. Rather, God is simply using the situation to His advantage, in order that His will would be achieved regardless. In other words, what God ultimately did was act in a way that was partially contingent on the free will actions of various human agents involved. In summary, it is perfectly natural–and indeed, the normal meaning–for the performer of an action to intend an action in one way, as the originator of the action, and one who has power to intend it in a different way, that does not involve any instigation or causing of that action. Normally, when one person does an action, and means something for it, and another person who does not do the action, also means something different for the action, there is no suggestion that the person who did not do the action, somehow really did do it, or irresistibly caused and instigated the other person to do it. He takes account of what the actor wants to do, and then responds and reacts to that, and decides to allow it and permit it for another intention. Perhaps he might direct certain aspects of the events to bring about the result that he intends. But he doesn’t instigate the evil. On the Joseph story: I think it is odd that the Joseph story gets brought up so much by Calvinists because it is also pointed to by Arminians as a good illustration of the Arminian position. Both camps appeal to it. I personally think it is a great example of the Arminian position (God using the evil others do and purposing it for good) and fits the Arminian position better. (SEA)
Question: In terms of what Joseph’s brothers “meant,” can God know what Joseph’s brothers would think next, if God did not determine what they would think next?
Arminianism: According to Calvinists, the answer is “No,” in that God could not, which Arminians would argue is a denial of omniscience, but Calvinists would argue that such knowledge would be un-knowable, if God did not otherwise determine it. So the Calvinist logic necessarily requires that God must determine everything, in order to know anything. But that is a rather pint-sized view of God. Arminians are willing to live with the fact that there are some things about God that we just don’t know. For instance, although we can acknowledge that God knows everything, we just don’t know how God knows what He knows. Although we can acknowledge that God is truine, we don’t know how He is triune. We know that God is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, as the Psalms state, creating the Heavens and Earth, before there was anything at all, but we don’t know how a Being could be without a beginning. So Arminians believe that God could know what Joseph’s brothers thought, without determining their thoughts for them, and the entire Arminian explanation flows from that one simple concept: God’s omniscience is not bound to the confines of theological Determinism. God can know it, and God can use it, for His own purposes, without having to cause they very things that He is using.
Question: But according to Calvinism, where did they get their intentions from?
Answer: According to Calvinism, God couldn’t know what their intentions were, unless God determined what their intentions would be. They are essentially a blank slate, a ball of clay, and the Potter gives them every thought that they would ever have, cradle to grave, without which, God would otherwise have no idea what they would think next. So according to Calvinism, all thoughts and motives and intentions of the heart, comes from God. This eliminates any sense of moral accountability, since the “agents” don’t think their own thoughts, but rather, think the thoughts that God gives them, without which, He’d have no idea what they would think next. So in this sense, there is but one independent thinker in the cosmos and all others are merely the subjects upon whom the one independent thinker carries out His own thoughts through them. So if there is but one independent thinker, there is only one person that is a moral Agent. The other are just a lump of clay, doing what they are formed to think and to be.
Calvinist view: God meant for what they meant in order to bring about good. (In other words, God determined their thoughts for them, without which, He would otherwise have no idea what they might think next. Now since they exclusively think only and every thought that God ever gives them, cradle to grave, the simple fact of carrying out the thoughts that God unilaterally gives them, constitutes a “second cause,” even though they are not independently causing anything at all, which makes Calvinist reasoning, deceptive.)
Arminian view: God meant for good to result from what they meant for bad, and not that God, in any way, predetermined their thoughts for them.
