To say that God’s goodness may be different in kind from man’s goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good?”
John Stuart Mill

But as we have already unearthed in the previous entries comments, the term “good” can be somewhat ambiguous.
However, I stake my entire life and my belief system on that one simple proposition: that God is good. That despite whatever evils, suffering and ills this world might throw our way, He is a good God. Great and greatly to be praised.
But the belief that God is good, however we in our finite minds might translate goodness, begs a whole litany of uncomfortable questions. Questions of theodicy, free-will and God’s Sovereignty abound. And just waving our hand and dismissing them or trotting out pat answers is theologically irresponsible.

When I first was confronted with the Epicurean Trilemma back in college I was nonplussed. I was ill-prepared for such an assault on my belief system. Over the years I dismissed it with the apologetic de rigueur. “God doesn’t give us more than we can handle.” “He doesn’t cause suffering, He just permits it.” And any other line of reasoning akin to disproving evolution by using peanut butter. Any answer was acceptable, no matter how flawed the reasoning, as long as it validated my preferred explanation.

But that trilemma always nagged at the back of my mind. The trilemma is essentially this:

If God could stop evil but will not, He is malevolent.
If God would stop evil but can not, He is impotent.
If God could not and would not, why call Him God?

In the 19 years since I first encountered that line of reasoning I have always countered it with the unshaken belief that God is good. If He is not good then…

It became easy for me to blindly embrace the Augustinian notions of reconciling evil and the existence of God. However, the more I study Augustine, the more I view him as the worst thing to ever happen to the western church (more on that later). Ultimately, Augustine’s theodicy is intellectually weak.

At the heart of this is still that contention that, based upon the sayings of Christ, that God is not only good, but intelligible. He does not operate in a way that is contradictory to His character and nature. Therefore, His ends, means and methods are ultimately good and He has placed within His creation the capacity to achieve, recognize and comprehend goodness.

With that understanding, though admittedly nowhere near fully-fleshed out, I began to look at the trilemma a little differently:

If God could save everybody but will not…
If God would save everybody but could not…
If God would not and could not…

Typically our views have fallen into one of those first two. The first argues for God’s Sovereignty and is the linchpin of Calvinism. The second argues for man’s free will.

It’s always been so easy for me to reject Calvinism. If honest, I know that part of that reason is because I wasn’t raised that way. But no matter how I look at option one all I see is a somewhat arbitrary God, choosing who He will cavalierly. There is no goodness or love there.
I have always argued from the free will side of things. But I must consider the possibility that I have made man’s free will the prime mover and elevated it to an idol status in my life. As if my free choice can dictate the power and sovereignty of God.

Is there another way to read this while staying true to the claims of Scripture? Is there a more fleshed-out biblical method of looking at issues of salvation that refuses to kowtow to all things Augustine? Is there a conservative interpretation that seeks a clearer path than the cruelty of Calvinism and humanism of free will?

I believe there might be.

Again, let me emphasize that I do not have this anywhere close to fleshed out in my mind. I know God, but not fully. I see something in the life, person and example of Christ that gives me far greater hope than I traditionally have.
I know that we will be wrestling with tough questions that kick against strongly held beliefs. I ask mercy and grace throughout this discussion. And, understand, I have not staked out a clear position, yet. That’s largely cause I don’t yet know where I will land.

If our foundations are unshakable, and I believe they are, then they can surely bear someone trying to shake them. Exposition coming up.