Rick Warren: "Oil Spil Not An Act of God"

[Jared]

I follow Rick Warren on facebook and he posted the following yesterday on his facebook page:

When people call an ocean oil spill caused by human drilling "an Act of God"'-THAT friends, is taking God's name in vain!

Here was my comment:

I would say that God controls both good and evil but God is only good. God is sovereign over the affairs of men, and yet men are responsible for their actions. I think part of why God can hold us responsible for our actions is that He is sovereign. He is on His throne.

I would like to focus on Warren and his upcoming speaking engagement at the Desiring God National Conference. But, I think this raises another issue as well. It seems like a lot of Christians back down when they're in the spotlight when it comes to something like 9/11, Katrina, or the oil spill and saying that God had a hand in it. What would you say if you were on Larry King and he asked you if God caused the oil spill?

I realize many of the Christians leaders that weasel their way out of saying that God has a part in tragedies already have a low view of the providence of God. But I was beginning to think that perhaps Warren might be a closet Calvinist. But I don't see how anyone with a reformed worldview, even if they're not "truly reformed" can say something like this. I still have questions about Piper inviting Warren to the conference. I like Piper and Warren, but I don't agree with Warren on everything, including this.

 

[yoyoceramic]

Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus,....

I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things.

 

[Whitefield]

If Larry King asked me, "Did God cause the oil spill?"
I would answer, "No."

 

[PuritanSchmidt]

If Larry King asked me, "Did God cause the oil spill?"
I would answer, "No."

Why would you answer no? out of curiousity

 

[Whitefield]

If Larry King asked me, "Did God cause the oil spill?"
I would answer, "No."

Why would you answer no? out of curiousity

Because I think the direct causal agent (implied in the question) is man and not God.

 

[Galatians220]

"Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?" - Amos 3:6. The Lord could have stopped this from happening, but in His providence, He didn't. He'll provide an end, clean-up or not, to the destruction of the gulf that proclaims His glory, not man's. He will, in the meantime, provide for His own.

Margaret

 

[Peairtach]

I think there is a semantic problem here in that the expression "act of God" is one used by the insurance industry for certain events without human causality. This may be where Warren is coming from. I don't know.

 

[Andres]

Christians are afraid that God can't stand up for himself. Seriously. They mean well and just think they are defending God's honor. They don't want anyone to think that He would ordain some of these things, so they "protect" God and say, "oh no man chose to act that way" because they think God will look bad. They don't realize that taking away from His sovereignty muddles Him far worse. Christians are weird like that.

 

[Jared]

I think there is a semantic problem here in that the expression "act of God" is one used by the insurance industry for certain events without human causality. This may be where Warren is coming from. I don't know.

I'm aware that the insurance industry talks about "acts of God". But, I think this is one area where the culture gets it right, even if they don't mean to, when many in the church get it wrong.

 

[Whitefield]

Christians are afraid that God can't stand up for himself. Seriously. They mean well and just think they are defending God's honor. They don't want anyone to think that He would ordain some of these things, so they "protect" God and say, "oh no man chose to act that way" because they think God will look bad. They don't realize that taking away from His sovereignty muddles Him far worse. Christians are weird like that.

Equally, to attribute to God direct causality for all human acts and blunders may result in questionable conclusions.

 

[Jack K]

It's a mistake to speak of God "causing" the oil spill. Yes, he certainly allowed it. He is using it to accomplish his purposes. And since he orders all events, the oil spill is in line with his perfect will. That's why we might want to say he "caused" it. But if we only say this, we miss the fact that man is the direct cause. Plus there's some measure of sin involved in the oil spill, either sin of negligence or of greed or whatever, and we must be clear that God is not the one behind sin. So I wouldn't simply say that God "caused" it, because such a statement suggests that man didn't. It's too simplistic to accurately decribe all that's involved in God's sovereignty.

I would also suggest, gently, that it's a double mistake to compare God's role in the oil spill to passages that speak of how he was behind biblical evils that were a judgment on specific sin. Certainly, God does work that way sometimes. He's capable of it. But referring to such passages is sure to suggest to some that we know God's motivation in this particular instance—that we think the oil spill is God's punishment for something or the other—and we simply can't know this to be the case.

 

[MarieP]

If Larry King asked me, "Did God cause the oil spill?"
I would answer, "No."

Why would you answer no? out of curiousity

Because I think the direct causal agent (implied in the question) is man and not God.

Did God or man cause the death of Jesus? Yes, I know God is not the author of evil, and the men who crucified Jesus did what was in their own hearts to do. But even when Peter's audience bore the guilt for this act, he still told them Jesus was delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God. He didn't "let God off the hook," not even then!

Acts 2
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

 

[Whitefield]

If Larry King asked me, "Did God cause the oil spill?"
I would answer, "No."

Why would you answer no? out of curiousity

Because I think the direct causal agent (implied in the question) is man and not God.

Did God or man cause the death of Jesus? Yes, I know God is not the author of evil, and the men who crucified Jesus did what was in their own hearts to do. But even when Peter's audience bore the guilt for this act, he still told them Jesus was delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God. He didn't "let God off the hook," not even then!

Acts 2
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

No doubt your point is true. But I'm not sure how that point applies to a human blunder such as an oil spill.

 

[Ivan]

It's a mistake to speak of God "causing" the oil spill. Yes, he certainly allowed it. He is using it to accomplish his purposes. And since he orders all events, the oil spill is in line with his perfect will. That's why we might want to say he "caused" it. But if we only say this, we miss the fact that man is the direct cause. Plus there's some measure of sin involved in the oil spill, either sin of negligence or of greed or whatever, and we must be clear that God is not the one behind sin. So I wouldn't simply say that God "caused" it, because such a statement suggests that man didn't. It's too simplistic to accurately decribe all that's involved in God's sovereignty.

I would also suggest, gently, that it's a double mistake to compare God's role in the oil spill to passages that speak of how he was behind biblical evils that were a judgment on specific sin. Certainly, God does work that way sometimes. He's capable of it. But referring to such passages is sure to suggest to some that we know God's motivation in this particular instance—that we think the oil spill is God's punishment for something or the other—and we simply can't know this to be the case.

Excellent response.

 

[raekwon]

I'm with Warren here.

 

[MarieP]

If Larry King asked me, "Did God cause the oil spill?"
I would answer, "No."

Why would you answer no? out of curiousity

Because I think the direct causal agent (implied in the question) is man and not God.

Did God or man cause the death of Jesus? Yes, I know God is not the author of evil, and the men who crucified Jesus did what was in their own hearts to do. But even when Peter's audience bore the guilt for this act, he still told them Jesus was delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God. He didn't "let God off the hook," not even then!

Acts 2
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

No doubt your point is true. But I'm not sure how that point applies to a human blunder such as an oil spill.

If Larry King asked if God caused the spill, my inclination is to think he's asking "Was God involved, or was He standing back with arms folded and maybe even caught by surprise?" After 9/11, people asked the same thing (and the tsunami and Haiti earthquake as well). The political/social climte says that God is not involved because a "good God wouldn't cause these things to happen." So shouldn't we uphold both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man instead of saying "no?"

 

[Whitefield]

If Larry King asked me, "Did God cause the oil spill?"
I would answer, "No."

Why would you answer no? out of curiousity

Because I think the direct causal agent (implied in the question) is man and not God.

Did God or man cause the death of Jesus? Yes, I know God is not the author of evil, and the men who crucified Jesus did what was in their own hearts to do. But even when Peter's audience bore the guilt for this act, he still told them Jesus was delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God. He didn't "let God off the hook," not even then!

Acts 2
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

No doubt your point is true. But I'm not sure how that point applies to a human blunder such as an oil spill.

If Larry King asked if God caused the spill, my inclination is to think he's asking "Was God involved, or was He standing back with arms folded and maybe even caught by surprise?" After 9/11, people asked the same thing (and the tsunami and Haiti earthquake as well). The political/social climte says that God is not involved because a "good God wouldn't cause these things to happen." So shouldn't we uphold both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man instead of saying "no?"

First, I'm sure Larry King (I've seen his follow-on questions after one like this) is asking "Did God cause this?" (i.e., "Did God reach down and break an otherwise good pipe?").
Second, I cannot say, "God broke the pipe." He very well may have, but I don't know that He did. I do know that He was directly involved in the death of Jesus, because He has said so. But I'm not ready to attribute to God direct causal agency in every human blunder.

 

[Steve Curtis]

If Larry King asked if God caused the spill, my inclination is to think he's asking "Was God involved, or was He standing back with arms folded and maybe even caught by surprise?" After 9/11, people asked the same thing (and the tsunami and Haiti earthquake as well). The political/social climte says that God is not involved because a "good God wouldn't cause these things to happen." So shouldn't we uphold both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man instead of saying "no?"

I think you are right. King - and the culture at large - seeks not to understand the intricate details of whether God is the mediate or immediate cause. Rather, he (and "they") seek either to impugn God or render Him a mere spectator in the cosmos. This, to me, is one of those questions akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?" A simple answer does not suffice. As much as we are able, I believe it is incumbent upon us to maintain God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. To imply either truth individually as "the answer" is to fail to tell the whole truth and, consequently, affirm the inquisitor's sinful delusion.

 

[Whitefield]

If Larry King asked if God caused the spill, my inclination is to think he's asking "Was God involved, or was He standing back with arms folded and maybe even caught by surprise?" After 9/11, people asked the same thing (and the tsunami and Haiti earthquake as well). The political/social climte says that God is not involved because a "good God wouldn't cause these things to happen." So shouldn't we uphold both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man instead of saying "no?"

I think you are right. King - and the culture at large - seeks not to understand the intricate details of whether God is the mediate or immediate cause. Rather, he (and "they") seek either to impugn God or render Him a mere spectator in the cosmos. This, to me, is one of those questions akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?" A simple answer does not suffice. As much as we are able, I believe it is incumbent upon us to maintain God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. To imply either truth individually as "the answer" is to fail to tell the whole truth and, consequently, affirm the inquisitor's sinful delusion.

If God directly intervened and was the causal agent of the broken pipe, wherein lies human responsibility for the broken pipe?

 

[MarieP]

If Larry King asked if God caused the spill, my inclination is to think he's asking "Was God involved, or was He standing back with arms folded and maybe even caught by surprise?" After 9/11, people asked the same thing (and the tsunami and Haiti earthquake as well). The political/social climte says that God is not involved because a "good God wouldn't cause these things to happen." So shouldn't we uphold both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man instead of saying "no?"

I think you are right. King - and the culture at large - seeks not to understand the intricate details of whether God is the mediate or immediate cause. Rather, he (and "they") seek either to impugn God or render Him a mere spectator in the cosmos. This, to me, is one of those questions akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?" A simple answer does not suffice. As much as we are able, I believe it is incumbent upon us to maintain God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. To imply either truth individually as "the answer" is to fail to tell the whole truth and, consequently, affirm the inquisitor's sinful delusion.

If God directly intervened and was the causal agent of the broken pipe, wherein lies human responsibility for the broken pipe?

But the culture isn't asking about direct versus indirect causality. They're asking if God has any hand whatsoever in what happened. You're talking about "how" God caused it to happen (how God brought this providence about) and not IF God caused it.

 

[Whitefield]

If Larry King asked if God caused the spill, my inclination is to think he's asking "Was God involved, or was He standing back with arms folded and maybe even caught by surprise?" After 9/11, people asked the same thing (and the tsunami and Haiti earthquake as well). The political/social climte says that God is not involved because a "good God wouldn't cause these things to happen." So shouldn't we uphold both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man instead of saying "no?"

I think you are right. King - and the culture at large - seeks not to understand the intricate details of whether God is the mediate or immediate cause. Rather, he (and "they") seek either to impugn God or render Him a mere spectator in the cosmos. This, to me, is one of those questions akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?" A simple answer does not suffice. As much as we are able, I believe it is incumbent upon us to maintain God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. To imply either truth individually as "the answer" is to fail to tell the whole truth and, consequently, affirm the inquisitor's sinful delusion.

If God directly intervened and was the causal agent of the broken pipe, wherein lies human responsibility for the broken pipe?

But the culture isn't asking about direct versus indirect causality. They're asking if God has any hand whatsoever in what happened.

And I think King's theology is not as sophisticated as that. I hear him asking, "Did God reach down a mile into the Gulf and break the pipe?" Given what I've seen of Larry King over the years, I think he is asking about direct causality.

 

[MarieP]

If Larry King asked if God caused the spill, my inclination is to think he's asking "Was God involved, or was He standing back with arms folded and maybe even caught by surprise?" After 9/11, people asked the same thing (and the tsunami and Haiti earthquake as well). The political/social climte says that God is not involved because a "good God wouldn't cause these things to happen." So shouldn't we uphold both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man instead of saying "no?"

I think you are right. King - and the culture at large - seeks not to understand the intricate details of whether God is the mediate or immediate cause. Rather, he (and "they") seek either to impugn God or render Him a mere spectator in the cosmos. This, to me, is one of those questions akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?" A simple answer does not suffice. As much as we are able, I believe it is incumbent upon us to maintain God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. To imply either truth individually as "the answer" is to fail to tell the whole truth and, consequently, affirm the inquisitor's sinful delusion.

If God directly intervened and was the causal agent of the broken pipe, wherein lies human responsibility for the broken pipe?

But the culture isn't asking about direct versus indirect causality. They're asking if God has any hand whatsoever in what happened.

And I think King's theology is not as sophisticated as that. I hear him asking, "Did God reach down a mile into the Gulf and break the pipe?" Given what I've seen of Larry King over the years, I think he is asking about direct causality.

But does his audience know that he's speaking of direct causality as well? Do you think our problem as modern Americans is that we have too low a view of God's sovereignty or too high of one?

 

[Whitefield]

If Larry King asked if God caused the spill, my inclination is to think he's asking "Was God involved, or was He standing back with arms folded and maybe even caught by surprise?" After 9/11, people asked the same thing (and the tsunami and Haiti earthquake as well). The political/social climte says that God is not involved because a "good God wouldn't cause these things to happen." So shouldn't we uphold both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man instead of saying "no?"

I think you are right. King - and the culture at large - seeks not to understand the intricate details of whether God is the mediate or immediate cause. Rather, he (and "they") seek either to impugn God or render Him a mere spectator in the cosmos. This, to me, is one of those questions akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?" A simple answer does not suffice. As much as we are able, I believe it is incumbent upon us to maintain God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. To imply either truth individually as "the answer" is to fail to tell the whole truth and, consequently, affirm the inquisitor's sinful delusion.

If God directly intervened and was the causal agent of the broken pipe, wherein lies human responsibility for the broken pipe?

But the culture isn't asking about direct versus indirect causality. They're asking if God has any hand whatsoever in what happened.

And I think King's theology is not as sophisticated as that. I hear him asking, "Did God reach down a mile into the Gulf and break the pipe?" Given what I've seen of Larry King over the years, I think he is asking about direct causality.

But does his audience know that he's speaking of direct causality as well? Do you think our problem as modern Americans is that we have too low a view of God's sovereignty or too high of one?

King wanted Warren to say yes, so then King could summarize by saying, "Oh! You blame God for the spill." Just before he goes to commercial break and brings on the next guest. I've seen him pull that trick many times.

I don't think we solve the low regard Americans have for God's sovereignty by attributing everything under the sun to God's direct causality.

And I realize the King interview is a hypothetical. I'm just playing out that hypothetical.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Still, to implicitly deny any causality on God's part sets the stage for a difficult presentation of the doctrine of His providence when Warren or whoever appears the next day at a church. (Granted, I am not saying that Warren is terribly concerned about a defense of meticulous providence).

And while I agree that King (or others) may be looking for an excuse to say, "Aha! God is the culprit!", others are just as eagerly looking for a Christian leader to admit to God's helplessness so that He is denuded of power and authority, and, thus, easily dismissed.

---------- Post added 06-12-2010 at 12:06 AM ---------- Previous post was 06-11-2010 at 11:52 PM ----------



Also, the OP quotes Warren as saying that the charge that the spill was an act of God is a violation of the third commandment. This, it would seem, takes the discussion to a different level. I do not think that one can equivocate in a situation where a violation of the law of God is invoked.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Too bad Gordon Clark was not a guest on Larry King's show. I can just see Larry going apoplectic with Clark's response a la the drunk man killing his wife and the will of God.

AMR

 

[puritan628]

"Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?" - Amos 3:6. The Lord could have stopped this from happening, but in His providence, He didn't. He'll provide an end, clean-up or not, to the destruction of the gulf that proclaims His glory, not man's. He will, in the meantime, provide for His own.

I would also suggest, gently, that it's a double mistake to compare God's role in the oil spill to passages that speak of how he was behind biblical evils that were a judgment on specific sin. Certainly, God does work that way sometimes. He's capable of it. But referring to such passages is sure to suggest to some that we know God's motivation in this particular instance—that we think the oil spill is God's punishment for something or the other—and we simply can't know this to be the case.

Why are we not asking, "God, what are you trying to tell us through this situation?" I don't see any problem with asking for wisdom from God, especially when such significant events take place. I would suggest that we should, in fact, compare God's role in the oil spill to, "passages that speak of how he was behind biblical evils that were a judgment on specific sin" precisely because bad things are judgments from God. No, we might not know the specific sin, but again, we (the church) can ask for wisdom.

Meanwhile, however, there's one solution to stopping the gushing of oil that I haven't heard of using: corporate prayer (and repentance) ... the church in America praying that God would stop the flow of oil from that specific location. Since we seem to be exhausting every possible solution known to man, why don't we ask the maker of earth to help us? The answer is because man has grown arrogant. Perhaps that is our sin ... not looking to God for the solution.

 

[Jared]

King wanted Warren to say yes, so then King could summarize by saying, "Oh! You blame God for the spill." Just before he goes to commercial break and brings on the next guest. I've seen him pull that trick many times.

Maybe I should have been clear in saying that Warren was not on Larry King's program, but Larry King is known to ask these kinds of questions. I just mentioned King to point out the fact that the world is watching us, and we need to be able to defend the positions that we take on issues such as this.

 

[cih1355]

God decreed that it would occur and He used natural means to accomplish what He had ordained.

 

[AThornquist]

God caused Rick Warren to say that.

 

[Christusregnat]

Act of God merely recognizes that God reigns over the "good and bad" in life. Frankly, however, I think that the carrying out of the event (and certainly the excessive media coverage) is a political move to forward the global warming agenda.

Cheers,