# Concerning "the ends justify the means" and God's decretive will



## Confessor (Aug 9, 2008)

I wrote this elsewhere when I was thinking about ends, means, and God's will. This was sparked from a passage in Owen's _The Death of Death_. Anyway, please tell me what you think.

There appears a contradiction: God ordains sinful events to pass because they bring about good. However, whenever humans discern under the same presumptions (e.g. deciding to kill person A to let persons B & C live), the outcome is clearly immoral. As Theodore Beza puts it, the reason God ordains any specific event is because He sees some good in it, and therefore all events are good in God’s eyes, for they all have a role in redemptive history. How do we avoid the charge that God is sinfully letting the ends justify the means?

First, it would be appropriate to point out that no means, intrinsically, is good or bad. One person cutting another’s body with a knife can be good or bad given the action’s respective end – good if done for the purpose of saving a life (as with a doctor), but bad if done for the purpose of injuring someone (as with a criminal).

However, when we see people try to justify embryonic stem cell research with the claim that killing a fourteen-day-old embryo can save thousands of others, we understand that they are immorally letting the ends justify the means. In such a case, the means (killing an embryo) is, in fact, intrinsically bad. How do we reconcile this with the above paragraph?

My solution involves the fact that there are several ends within one action. When someone decides to remove an embryo from his mother, he has two ends in mine: 1. killing human life (even if not believing they are human), and 2. saving lives. Certainly, the second end is admirable, but since it is hopelessly entwined with the first, which is a necessarily sinful end – no human has the right to take another’s life against their will (not to say that it is universally permissible to take a human’s life with consent, however, but I digress) – the entire framework crumbles, and therefore the action, removing the embryo from the mother, is sinful. The upshot of this is that if any end of an action is sinful, the action itself is sinful. Otherwise, objecting to an action with “the ends justify the means” is baseless. The ends always justify the means; it’s whether or not there are bad ends accompanying the good ends.

At this point, it should seem clear why God is not culpable of creaturely accusations. For example, by ordaining an embryo’s death for stem cell research, the person killing the embryo would be culpable because there exists a sinful end in his perspective – taking human life – which does not exist in God’s perspective. For God, all ends are admirable. As Creator, God has the right to take human life, and therefore He has the right to ordain human deaths for a greater purpose. Therefore, in the most obvious example of ordaining evil events for good (Christ’s crucifixion), God let the ends justify the means, without a single bad end in mind. The mockery, humiliation, scorn, and chastisement of Christ, while intrinsically displeasing to God, were absolutely permissible for God (since He has absolute authority over human life), but certainly not for those men doing such despicable actions.​
The one thing that I'm not sure about from this is how to account for God's general disinclination regarding pain, death, suffering, etc. Death especially is viewed by God as an intrinsically bad thing (Ezekiel 18:23). It can easily be seen why, for instance, murder is intrinsically bad, because in such instances God can see what the ends are for man (i.e. what the murderer's intentions are) and can be displeased with that, but when it comes to pain, death, or suffering, _per se_, without a sinful agent creating these through immoral actions, it becomes more difficult to understand the nature of God's dislike of such things.


----------



## Leslie (Aug 11, 2008)

What God does defines what is good. There are no higher laws. What God does is good, period. This does not mean that we creatures can do what we consider the moral equivalent and conclude that it's good; no way. God can justify the means by considering the ends; this doesn't imply that we may. Does this make sense or am i missing something?


----------



## Confessor (Aug 13, 2008)

Leslie said:


> What God does defines what is good. There are no higher laws. What God does is good, period. This does not mean that we creatures can do what we consider the moral equivalent and conclude that it's good; no way. God can justify the means by considering the ends; this doesn't imply that we may. Does this make sense or am i missing something?



I understand what is the case, and I'm trying to find the underlying framework. As Greg Bahnsen would say, I am taking God's Word and receptively reconstructing a system. I don't want to settle at "God is good because God is good" -- although that's not false -- I want to find out why. I'm not expecting to comprehend God, but I am expecting to learn more about Him.


----------



## Confessor (Aug 13, 2008)

joshua said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> > ... it becomes more difficult to understand the nature of God's dislike of such things.
> ...



not currently understood =/= not understandable

As I said above, I'm trying to find the underlying philosophical framework in God's decrees. Speaking of which, I'm gonna do some reading on _quoad effectus_.

I thank both of you for actually responding to this.


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 13, 2008)

joshua said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> > ... it becomes more difficult to understand the nature of God's dislike of such things.
> ...



Joshua,

If read in context, Isaiah isn't talking about an incomprehensibility that puts God's revealed will into an irrational / non-intelligible category; God is telling us how benevolent and forgiving He is:



> Isaiah 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.



To imply from this passage (as is often done) that it is "against the rules" to reason from Scriptures is, I think, often used as a cop-out so that one doesn't have to think through the implications of his belief; or at least the particular belief that one doesn't want to think through. 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Confessor (Aug 13, 2008)

Adam, I hate how terribly selfish and attention-seeking this sounds, but what do you think of my miniature essay? Anything to add or object to?


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 13, 2008)

joshua said:


> Much agreed, Brother Adam. And, for the record, I never implied that it is "against the rules to reason from Scriptures," but if something can't be (and I'm not saying that packabacka's query can't be, but if it can't) understood by the reasoning of the Scriptures, then this passage may be applied in general to such a case. Thus, my response was simply in the context that even if it can't be "figured out," that's okay.



Gotcha. I happen to think the question Packabacka's asking can be deduced by good and necessary consequence, but your understanding seems to be that there isn't enough information. Fair enough 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 13, 2008)

Ben, I liked your essay. In fact, it reminded me of Aquinas' _Summa Theologiae._ Part of his work includes the idea that the end of all things is good. It might be worth checking out if you haven't done so already.

The hierarchy of ethics is also relevant when discussing the human perspective.

Keep it up, brother!


----------



## JBaldwin (Aug 13, 2008)

> There appears a contradiction: God ordains sinful events to pass because they bring about good. However, whenever humans discern under the same presumptions (e.g. deciding to kill person A to let persons B & C live), the outcome is clearly immoral. As Theodore Beza puts it, the reason God ordains any specific event is because He sees some good in it, and therefore all events are good in God’s eyes, for they all have a role in redemptive history. How do we avoid the charge that God is sinfully letting the ends justify the means?



This is not to pick apart what you've said, but to add something I've thought about on this issue. "God ordains sinful events to pass because they bring about good." Wouldn't it be more correct to say that "God ordains sinful events to pass, because He will use them to bring about good." Sinful events never on their own bring about good. Apart from the intervention of God, sin would work its hellish fruit in our lives as it does in the life of the unbeliever. Instead, God works through the events to bring the fruit of righteousness in our lives. Which is probably what you are trying to say in your essay which was thought provoking. 

I don't see this as an "ends justifies the means" scenerio. God does not intentionally go out and do something wrong in order to make us holy. Instead, He takes a circumstance that is a natural result of our sin and uses it to bring about good. 

I have been thinking much lately of Israel and Pharaoh and Israel and Babylon. In both cases, God allowed Israel's enemies to continue in their sin and then turned it about to bring a benefit and a cleansing to His children. To me that is not really quite the same as the ends justifies the means, because as you said, for one thing the motive is not the same, and for another thing, God is not capable of sin.


----------



## davidsuggs (Aug 13, 2008)

The ends do not justify the means, nor do the means justify the ends. We are restrained under our duty to follow God's decrees. That is it. We do it not to "get to heaven" nor to gain popularity, but we simply do it. We cannot understand how He sees things so we must act within the categories that He has given us as finite human beings. Additionally, trying to judge God's actions and discern His motives from our point of view, apart from His Word, as sinful human beings, we will be wrong.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Aug 13, 2008)

packabacka said:


> The one thing that I'm not sure about from this is how to account for God's general disinclination regarding pain, death, suffering, etc. Death especially is viewed by God as an intrinsically bad thing (Ezekiel 18:23). It can easily be seen why, for instance, murder is intrinsically bad, because in such instances God can see what the ends are for man (i.e. what the murderer's intentions are) and can be displeased with that, but when it comes to pain, death, or suffering, _per se_, without a sinful agent creating these through immoral actions, it becomes more difficult to understand the nature of God's dislike of such things.



I think God's dislike of suffering, pain, etc. is because they go against the true nature of His creation, and thus against His nature. Before sin none of these things existed, and after the Last Judgment those who are in heaven will experience these things no more. So in God's perfect (or natural) plan none of these evils are present. They are contrary to His character, or so it seems. 

Interestingly, all of Jesus' miracles involved restoring things to their perfect/natural state (except for the unfortunate fig tree!). Blind men were healed, bleeding was stopped, demons were cast out, dead were raised, food was provided, storms were calmed, etc. Jesus didn't show His Deity by doing some random miracle such as flying around through the clouds, but by in small part restoring His perfect creation. To me, this indicates His natural plan for His creation without the devastating effects of sin.


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 13, 2008)

packabacka said:


> Adam, I hate how terribly selfish and attention-seeking this sounds, but what do you think of my miniature essay? Anything to add or object to?



Ben,

Not too attention seeking 

On the whole, I think that the essay raises some excellent issues. The quandry of God's ordination of every single detail of history is answered in Scripture, and is a most wholesome doctrine.

If there were anything that happened over which God's divine providence did not hold absolute sway, then God would be something else than He is described as in Scripture. All beings, in heaven and upon the earth do exactly as He directs. The wicked fulfill His decree, and are like clay in the potter's hands.

I would not say that the "ends justify the means". God's means are justified, because they are God's means. It does not require that the ends justify anything. The ends are justified, or declared righteous, because they are righteous. All of God's ways are righteousness, and all of His deeds are Truth. He creates the light, and forms the darkness; He creates good and evil. 

I love the plays of William Shakespeare. I am particularly fond of how God's image in man can produce some of the bone-chilling tradgedies that flowed from his pen. When I read MacBeth, for instance, I don't wonder what the climax will be in order to enjoy the play. The whole play is leading to the end, but the play is just as good as the climax. 

God is the Master Playwright: every act of the Play leads to a Climax that will demonstrate to all the world that God is righteous. 

My point: All of God's acts are justified, because God can do no evil. God ordains secondary causes, some of which are wicked, some of which are good. 

To extend the Shakespeare analogy; I'm sure that Shakespeare would have condemned the acts of some of his characters. And yet, he wrote those actions into the plays. This, too, reflects God, the Master Playwright, Who, though He defines what things He hates, yet uses those same things for the glory of His Name.

In all, a good article, and I'm just babbling now; but, hey, you asked me to 

Adam


----------



## Confessor (Aug 13, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> Ben, I liked your essay. In fact, it reminded me of Aquinas' _Summa Theologiae._ Part of his work includes the idea that the end of all things is good. It might be worth checking out if you haven't done so already.
> 
> The hierarchy of ethics is also relevant when discussing the human perspective.
> 
> Keep it up, brother!



Thanks! I actually have a copy of his _Shorter Summa_, but I had to stop reading it partway through, simply because it was too difficult. I have avowed to read it in the future though.


----------



## Confessor (Aug 13, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> "God ordains sinful events to pass because they bring about good." Wouldn't it be more correct to say that "God ordains sinful events to pass, because He will use them to bring about good." Sinful events never on their own bring about good. Apart from the intervention of God, sin would work its hellish fruit in our lives as it does in the life of the unbeliever.



Yeah, you're right -- that is a more accurate and God-honoring way to phrase it.



> I don't see this as an "ends justifies the means" scenerio. God does not intentionally go out and do something wrong in order to make us holy. Instead, He takes a circumstance that is a natural result of our sin and uses it to bring about good.
> 
> I have been thinking much lately of Israel and Pharaoh and Israel and Babylon. In both cases, God allowed Israel's enemies to continue in their sin and then turned it about to bring a benefit and a cleansing to His children. To me that is not really quite the same as the ends justifies the means, because as you said, for one thing the motive is not the same, and for another thing, God is not capable of sin.



I still think it's appropriate to speak of the ends justifying the means. Although God is not morally culpable for the sins of man, I think it is disparaging to His sovereignty to claim that He is simply reacting to their sins. I am a pretty adamant supralapsarian.


----------



## Confessor (Aug 13, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> packabacka said:
> 
> 
> > The one thing that I'm not sure about from this is how to account for God's general disinclination regarding pain, death, suffering, etc. Death especially is viewed by God as an intrinsically bad thing (Ezekiel 18:23). It can easily be seen why, for instance, murder is intrinsically bad, because in such instances God can see what the ends are for man (i.e. what the murderer's intentions are) and can be displeased with that, but when it comes to pain, death, or suffering, _per se_, without a sinful agent creating these through immoral actions, it becomes more difficult to understand the nature of God's dislike of such things.
> ...



Yeah, I was thinking about it today, and I figured that the most appropriate explanation for such entities would not be to place them in a framework of ends and means, but rather as an appeal to intuition.

After all, if there is not something that is simply good _in se_, then how can an end or a means be a good?


----------



## JBaldwin (Aug 13, 2008)

> I still think it's appropriate to speak of the ends justifying the means. Although God is not morally culpable for the sins of man, *I think it is disparaging to His sovereignty to claim that He is simply reacting to their sins.* I am a pretty adamant supralapsarian.



I would agree with you on that point. I do not believe that God reacts to our sins. I am still not sure I would agree with the "ends justifying the means" only because in my mind that means "it's ok to sin as long as the outcome is ok", and I don't think that is what you are saying.


----------



## Confessor (Aug 14, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> > I still think it's appropriate to speak of the ends justifying the means. Although God is not morally culpable for the sins of man, *I think it is disparaging to His sovereignty to claim that He is simply reacting to their sins.* I am a pretty adamant supralapsarian.
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with you on that point. I do not believe that God reacts to our sins. I am still not sure I would agree with the "ends justifying the means" only because in my mind that means "it's ok to sin as long as the outcome is ok", and I don't think that is what you are saying.



My point is that such a notion, that the ends justify the means -- e.g. that it's alright to kill this person to save these two other people -- is immoral at root. Therefore, my mini-essay's intent was to discuss how the objection, that God is being immoral by letting the ends justify the means, is invalid.

So, I agree with you that humans never ought to let the ends justify the means (that was basically a given in my mini-essay). I was merely attempting to prove why God does not fall victim to such an objection.


----------



## Neogillist (Aug 14, 2008)

*Righteousness flows out of God's will, not vice versa.*

In response to your question, I shall quote from Jean Calvin who himself quotes from Augustine, a passage in the Institutes that I happened to be reading last night:

2. These observations would be amply sufficient for the pious and modest, and such as remember that they are men. But because many are the species of blasphemy which these virulent dogs utter against God, we shall, as far as the case admits, give an answer to each. Foolish men raise many grounds of quarrel with God, as if they held him subject to their accusations. First, they ask why God is offended with his creatures who have not provoked him by any previous offense; for to devote to destruction whomsoever he pleases, more resembles the caprice of a tyrant than the legal sentence of a judge; and, therefore, there is reason to expostulate with God, if at his mere pleasure men are, without any desert of their own, predestinated to eternal death. *If at any time thoughts of this kind come into the minds of the pious, they will be sufficiently armed to repress them, by considering how sinful it is to insist on knowing the causes of the divine will, since it is itself, and justly ought to be, the cause of all that exists. For if his will has any cause, there must be something antecedent to it, and to which it is annexed; this it were impious to imagine. The will of God is the supreme rule of righteousness,50[1] so that everything which he wills must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of his willing it.* Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did so, we must answer, Because he pleased. But if you proceed farther to ask why he pleased, you ask for something greater and more sublime than the will of God, and nothing such can be found. Let human temerity then be quiet, and cease to inquire after what exists not, lest perhaps it fails to find what does exist. This, I say, will be sufficient to restrain any one who would reverently contemplate the secret things of God. Against the audacity of the wicked, who hesitate not openly to blaspheme, God will sufficiently defend himself by his own righteousness, without our assistance, when depriving their consciences of all means of evasion, he shall hold them under conviction, and make them feel their guilt. We, however, give no countenance to the fiction of absolute power,50[2] which, as it is heathenish, so it ought justly to be held in detestation by us. We do not imagine God to be lawless. He is a law to himself; because, as Plato says, men laboring under the influence of concupiscence need law; but the will of God is not only free from all vice, but is the supreme standard of perfection, the law of all laws. But we deny that he is bound to give an account of his procedure; and we moreover deny that we are fit of our own ability to give judgment in such a case. Wherefore, when we are tempted to go farther than we ought, let this consideration deter us, Thou shalt be "justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judges," (Ps. 51:4). [Institutes III Ch. 23, 2]

When one claims that the ends that God has ordained are justified because of the means or the means are justified by the ends, one fails to realize that God has decreed both the ends and the means out of his own will. Consequently, God's will determines the standard of righteousness, not vice versa, for then we would imply that there is a higher law above God that He is required to follow or be accountable to in His being righteous. There is no need to appeal to complicated logic or philosophy to explain why God can use 'evil' means to bring about 'good' ends, since in so doing, we accidentally raise righteousness above God's supreme will and consequently err. It would be more appropriate to point out that although a specific event itself may be deemed evil to man within the framework of God's commandments, yet when this event is decreed as part of the whole sequence of historical events to bring glory to God, that event is indeed a righteous act of God. Thus God's will justifies both the ends and the means.


----------



## Confessor (Aug 14, 2008)

Neogillist said:


> There is no need to appeal to complicated logic or philosophy to explain why God can use 'evil' means to bring about 'good' ends, since in so doing, we accidentally raise righteousness above God's supreme will and consequently err.



Neogillist,

Thank you for that passage, but please remember the intent of my writing. I did not do this and say that it's alright to suspend our opinion on God's righteousness depending on the outcome of philosophical reasoning. I did not say it's fine to question God's righteousness without comprehensive understanding. I did not say that unbelief is allowed and contingent on my essay.

I already know that God's decree is righteous, and I know that it is wrong to question the decree's righteousness at the outset, but it doesn't follow that it's wrong to understand *why* it's righteous. This is not placing a standard above God, either, for I am finding out the reason of an action's righteousness by understanding them in the context of God-given standards. I am not proposing a moral standard above God, but rather I want to see how God's actions fit in with His moral character -- and not that they don't fit in if my reasoning tells me so, but rather that they necessarily do and I want to know the process.

To object against discerning the underlying reasons for God's actions (without objecting against God's actions themselves) is to initiate a process towards knowledge-hating Abecedarianism.

God bless. I always enjoy reading your posts.


----------

