John Mark Comer on God's Sovereignty and Evil

•

John Mark Comer on God’s Sovereignty and the Problem of Evil A long thread:

About thirty minutes ago, I listened to a sermon by John Mark Comer on God’s Sovereignty and the problem of evil. I will link to it at the end. But I was intrigued since Comer sets himself up against John Piper, John Calvin, and Augustine on the question.

Comer for his part will cite Greg Boyd, David Bentley Hart, and N.T. Wright to argue for his side.

In essence, Comer objects to the idea that God is sovereign or control over all things. He believes competing wills on earth clash with God’s. We are free agents, and Satan himself vies against God’s will.

And more than that, the reality of chaos or accidents loom large (i.e.., what Comer defines natural evil as).

In the following, I will share my observations about his argument, attempting to fairly outline briefly without revision. Then I will add a few reflections on the form of the argument and further resources.

To my mind, the major conflict between Comer and the Augustinian view he rejects centers on the doctrine of God.

(1) Observations on Comer’s Argument John Mark Comer argues that God’s will before Augustine meant God’s moral intention. After Augustine, God’s will points to God’s will controls all things. John Calvin too confirms this new understanding of divine will.

At this point, Comer plays a long clip where John Piper says God wills people to die. Comer takes offense of language of God being in control and sovereign because while it gives comfort at the starts, then when evil happens, how can we say that’s good (~ 5:00)?

Against the notion that anyone who dies God wills to die (6:25), Comer points to 1 Corinthians 15:25–26 as evidence that death is the last enemy of God.

And so many things happen that God does not will; “God does not always get his way” because of human “free will.” Evil is the by-product of creative freedom of human (~7:40). His reasoning works in this way: Death is evil. God does not will evil.

Therefore, God does not will the death of anyone. Sin, death, and evil are caused by free will, not God. He points then to 1 John 5:19 to show that the whole world is under the control of the evil one—and points to God’s battle with the evil one.

We are in a battlefield and war on earth (8:20).

His theodicy (citing Dr. Brashears) works like this: given that Jesus teaches us to pray, “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” God’s will must be done in heaven but not on earth. So there are then, he argues, five wills on earth (11:40).

(1) God’s will (God is king, and he does what he wants). God co-opts evil for good ends too (like Babylon exile, etc.). But these times are exceptions to the rule, against the view he attributes to John Piper. (2) Our will. (3) Other people’s will. Evil people do evil things.

(4) Satan’s will. God is at war with Satan, and the world is under Satan’s control (for now), he claims. He quotes Greg Boyd positively, which points to demonic creatures with free will and the capacity to do evil. He thinks C.S.

Lewis illustrates the point well in Screwtape Letters. (5) Chaos, random chance which he thinks natural evil is. Accident, luck affirmed. Not everything happens for a reason; some things happen for no reason.

If you lose your job, should we say “God is control?” No (22:30). As Comer argues, It could be good or it could be simply your fault. It could be some evil co-worker. It could be satanic. It could be chaos, natural evil. You simply don’t always know.

The answer to this problem of evil is the cross of Jesus. Comer says substitutionary atonement was not the dominant atonement theory in the first millennium but Christus Victor was (~30:00). He believes both are correct along with other atonement theories.

Both-and is true (31:00).

But he points to Christus Victor as “the knife’s edge for how we think about the cross” (31:30), citing Greg Boyd to confirm his argument. “God suffers at the hand of evil,” Comer argues so we are not alone in it (he here affirms Greg Boyd on the cross).

Comer points to John Piper who says that God is the cause of the 2004 Tsunami (33:30). He contrasts Piper’s view with David Bentley Hart’s online article on the Tsunami as a counter to Piper, affirming Hart’s view.

He points to hope in Romans 8, echoing Wright’s characteristic phrase “God will put the world to rights (35:00). He cites Wright at 44:29, confirming the source.

(2) Reflections on Comer’s Argument Comer argues for a theodicy, solving the problem of evil thru a proposal of competing wills in this world. God wills good morally, but people, others, Satan, & chaos confound this moral will towards to the good. This is because of free will.

God does not cause sin, evil, death, although Comer admits he can do such things rarely as the Bible tells us.

Fundamentally, Comer misunderstands the Augustinian and Reformed doctrine of God. The word cause as in God causes all things means not a physical cause in space and time as we might think of it. (Tho sometimes it can mean that)

Rather, God, because he is beyond space and time, is the cause of all things in ways befitting his Spiritual, timeless, and immutable nature.

Hence, someone like William Perkins (or Peter Vermigli) will speak of God’s causality as the First Cause outside of our order of experience, which itself ENABLES OUR FREE or CONTINGENT choices—secondary causes.

In short, God as First Cause of all things enables contingent or free choice in the level of second order causality. This explains why so many reformed authors and confessions will point to free will and choice as remaining in us after the fall.

It’s why even AUGUSTINE whom Comer cites believes God does not will the substantial existence of evil (a key point!). God is not evil, nor creates evil, but Augustine argues orders evil.

We are the cause of evil which is in our choice, as we pervert created goods by our corrupted desires.

Ontologically, to say that God does not will everything but chaos, Satan, or others do also implies the non-existence of things in this world. In God, we live and move and have our being, as Paul says in Acts 17.

This is because God the Father holds all things together by the word of his power as Hebrews 1 notes (see also Colossians). That Word is Christ, the Logos (John 1).

As to the arguments about Satan and demons being the cause of evil and the citation of Paul’s thorn in the flesh, Augustine affirms this. Psalm 78 explicitly says God uses evil angels to make way for his wrath (78:49–50).

The whole book of Job, as Gregory the Great notes, illustrates the point as well: “Satan unknowingly serves the purposes of God’s hidden justice” (Moralia, 2.20.38).”

But that’s the point: God’s order of causality differs qualitatively to his creation’s order of causality. The Creator-creature distinction does not disappear when it comes to God’s will! To use language in Gregory of Nyssa, there is a diastema between us and God!

Hence, God can work all things for good to those who love him (Rom 8:28).

The notion that Augustine changed the definition of God’s will here frankly … not rooted in the historical documents themselves. The order of Providence finds deep root in the Apostolic and Church Fathers.

I feel no need to cite sources here to make the case, since it seems too obvious. But if there are comments asking for evidence, I will supply it.

While I could say much more and cite many more Bible verses, the problem here fundamentally hinges on the identity of God. Is God’s order of causality within our creation or not?

Comer implies yes, which is why he cannot conceive of God being in control of all things AND real freedom of choice.

And it’s why he finds the cross being that great act whereby “God suffers at the hand of evil,” a statement from Greg Boyd which echoes Bonhoeffer’s “Only a suffering God can help us now,” which was theologically developed by Jürgen Moltmann on the decades after.

While Comer does not delve too deeply here, it seems clear given his sources for argument and his view of God that he must affirm a version of passibility, something the earliest Christians would not have affirmed about God (see my article on the topic below).

I’ll leave my comments here without saying more, but point to further resources. Words never seem to end. And these are my brief thoughts, so please take them as such. I am eager to read more Comer and come to understand him, and perhaps I have misunderstood him here.

If I have, I am eager to find out where and correct myself.

(3) Further resources Wyatt Graham, “Calvinists are Uncommonly good at Affirming free will wyattgraham.com/calvinists-are-uncommonly-good-at-affirming-free-will/.”

Wyatt Graham, “Do we have free will? Yes. Peter Vermigli's view of Human Freedom ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/detrinitate/do-we-have-free-will-yes/.” Wyatt Graham, “What was Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh?” ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/detrinitate/what-was-pauls-thorn-in-the-flesh/ Wyatt Graham, “Only the Impassible God Can Help Us Now.” ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/detrinitate/only-the-impassible-god-can-help-us-now/

John Mark Comer, “Sermon youtube.com/watch?v=uGF75xym8RE,” “transcript realitysf.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/BC_Week23.pdf,” official site https://bridgetown. church/teachings/the-sage/why#:~:text=June%25205%252C%25202016%2520%E2%80%A2%2520John,propose%2520a%2520better%2520way%2520forward.