I certainly don’t mean to focus more than necessary on Piper, but he tends to be involved at significant levels in a number of different issues. I was recently talking with people on facebook about double predestination. Someone linked to Piper’s Are There Two Wills in God?, a very, very commonly linked article. I said that Piper was wrong, and when asked why, gave the following explanation (along with this link to an AOMin response to Piper’s article http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2008/12/10/1-timothy-24-an-exegesis/):
Marc, thanks for the opportunity to clarify. Please see the link I provided as it interacts with Piper’s article.
It implies that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass. This distinction in the way God wills has been expressed in various ways throughout the centuries. It is not a new contrivance. For example, theologians have spoken of sovereign will and moral will, efficient will and permissive will, secret will and revealed will, will of decree and will of command, decretive will and preceptive will, voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure), etc.
This is true. But Piper does not understand these two wills in the same way that typical Reformed theologians do. Thus he is creating confusion and is unjustified in the way he attempts to find support for his view in Reformed history. (If someone can point me towards Jonathan Edwards’ interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4 I would appreciate it)
The distinction simply stems from the fact that the word “will” can refer to more than one thing. In the Bible, it refers to God’s decree and it also refers to God’s commands (or law, as Piper quotes Edwards). But note that those are two very different things. It is not a contradiction or even a paradox to say that God commands men to do something, and then decrees that they do not do it.
“we must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and [that] both of these things can be spoken of as God’s will.”
It is important how one understands that phrase. By “what God would like to see happen” do you simply mean what God commands? Or do you mean God longs for and desires for something that He does not actually accomplish? If the latter, then you have a problem with Is. 46:10; Ps 115:3. If God does not decree something, it is because He does not desire it.
What Piper is actually arguing for is 3 wills in God: a decretive will, a preceptive (command) will, and a will of unfulfilled desire or simply, a wish. Piper creates confusion by claiming his third view is just God’s preceptive will. It is not.
Piper’s error can be seen in his attempt to apply an understanding of God’s preceptive (command/precepts) will to John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:4.
1 Timothy 2:4, for example, is not talking about God’s command to repent and believe. It is referring to God’s redemptive *work* of salvation. It is referring to something God does, not to something man must do. Therefore it refers to God’s decretive will. That being the case, it simply does not make sense to say it refers to some kind of lower desire in God that is superseded by a greater desire (“God’s will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to the glorification of his sovereign grace”). If God’s will to save all is restrained by His commitment not to save all, then we shouldn’t pray and ask Him to save all. (Let me give you an example. If I have a desire to go on vacation with my wife, but I have a greater desire to pay rent, why would I tell my wife to continually ask me to go on vacation?) It just doesn’t make any sense of 1 Timothy 2:4. Either the Arminian interpretation is correct (or the Universalist’s), or John Calvin’s interpretation is correct. Piper’s is not exegetically viable.
Let me know what you think. Aside from all the other issues, of particular interest to me is that Piper’s interpretation just doesn’t seem to make any sense of 1 Timothy 2:4.
R.C. Sproul is a good enough communicator to recognize that what John Piper is arguing for is really 3 wills in God, not 2. In his Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, he says
“When we speak about God’s will we do so in at least three different ways… The three meanings of the will of God: (a) Sovereign decretive will is the will by which God brings to pass whatsoever He decrees. This is hidden to us until it happens. (b) Preceptive will is God’s revealed law or commandments, which we have the power but not the right to break. (c) Will of disposition describes God’s attitude or disposition. It reveals what is pleasing to Him [Sproul places Ezekiel 18:23,32; 33:11 in this category].”
Whether one agrees with Sproul’s reading of the Ezekial passages or not, he is much more helpful in that he does not muddy the waters of God’s preceptive will, as Piper and others do.
Also, I came across a critique of Piper’s essay written by an Arminian. It is worth taking note of:
The fact that God wants all men to be saved, set in juxtaposition with the fact that not all men end up saved, suggests that there is not only one will in the universe, but at least two. Arminians say that there is the will of God and the will of man – two wills at odds in the universe. Calvinists say the two wills that are at odds are both in God. That is, in one sense, God wishes all men would be saved; in another sense, He really wants millions of people to burn in hell for all eternity. Piper opens his essay with this ambitious statement of purpose:
“My aim in this chapter is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God’s will for ‘all persons to be saved’ (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion.”
I have been surprised to see how many readers seem to think that he accomplished this goal. He does make about as good a case as can be made for such a doomed postulate, but he does so by tricking the mind of the inattentive reader (I don’t suggest that John Piper intends to “trick” anybody. I am sure that he is very convinced of the validity of the case he makes, but Calvinists have in many ways allowed themselves to be “tricked” by a faulty logic which they would never accept if used by their theological opponents. It manifests the phenomenon of how intense desire to believe a thing to be true will lead a man to accept uncritically the flimsiest case in its defense).
“There is but one will of God; however, there is a distinction in the objects to which His will relates. Therefore in recognizing this distinction we differentiate between the will of His decree and the willof His command… The will of God‟s command is also referred to as His preceptive will or His revealed will. This will has reference to the regulative principle of life as well as to the laws which God has made known and prescribed to man in order that his walk might be regulated accordingly… it is primarily descriptive of man‟s duty… In making a distinction in the will of God, we are not suggesting that God has two wills. In God the act of the will is singular. The difference rather relates to the objects towards whom His will is exercised. Much less do we suggest that God has two wills which are incompatible, as if God with His revealed will would desire something and His secret will would be opposed. When we consider the will of God as being either secret or revealed, this distinction pertains to decidedly different matters [commands vs volition].”-Wilhelmus à Brakel A Christians Reasonable Service, vol. 1, 114-115
“The first and principal distinction is that of the decretive and preceptive will. The former means that which God wills to do or permit himself; the latter what he wills that we should do… Therefore Godcan (without a contradiction) will as to precept what he does not will as to decree inasmuch as he wills to prescribe something to man, but does not will to effect it (as he willed Pharaoh to release the people, but yet nilled their actual release).” -Francis Turretin, Institutes, 3rd Topic, 15th Question
“The will of precept has no volitional content, for it simply states what God has commanded *ought* to be done by man… So it is quite inappropriate to say that God wills something to be with reference to His will of command, for the preceptive will never pertains to the futurition of actions, only to the obligation of them.” -Matthew Winzer, review of Murray’s “The Free Offer of the Gospel”
I’ve been having a rather lengthy conversation with some Arminian/Molinist acquaintances about Calvinism generally and about God not being the author of sin specifically. Overall I think it has been beneficial in drawing out the underlying differences between the two views. In particular, I wanted to share an excerpt regarding the vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath that is rather telling:
Suppose a beautiful pot says, “Look how beautiful I am, won’t you congratulate me for being so beautiful?” And the potter then says, “You don’t deserve any credit for being beautiful because I am the one who made you beautiful; I am the one who should be praised for making you beautiful, and you have no right to claim any credit for it.”
The potter’s response, to my lights, is completely sensical.
But now exchange “beautiful” with “ugly””: The pot says “Look how ugly I am, won’t you blame me for be being so ugly?” And the potter then says, “You don’t deserve any blame for being ugly because I am the one who made you ugly; I am the one who should be blamed for making you ugly, and you have no right to claim any blame for it.”
If the potter to pot relation undercuts the pot’s ability to be praised, the same relation undercuts the pot’s ability to be blamed.
And hence, so much for a soteriological reading of Romans 9.
Derek, your statements here betray a poor understanding of salvation. By beauty and ugliness I assume you are referring to righteousness and unrighteousness (since that is the standard of salvation). Let’s plug those words back into your objection and see where it gets us:
Suppose a righteous pot says, “Look how righteous I am, won’t you congratulate me for being so righteous?” (Luke 18:9-14) And the potter then says, “You don’t deserve any credit for being righteous because I am the one who made you righteous; I am the one who should be praised for making you righteous, and you have no right to claim any credit for it.”
Now, if the righteous pot was righteous because he lived a life of perfect obedience, then he deserves congratulation (Rom 4:4). Even if it was God who willed him to live that perfect life, he still did it, so he does deserve honor. But the truth is, no pot can say “look how righteous I am” because no pot is righteous. The vessels of mercy are not made righteous, they are counted righteous. They are covered, or clothed, in an alien righteousness, the righteousness of Christ. That is why they cannot boast in their righteousness, because they have none of their own.
“Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
I read this to mean that Abraham himself is now righteous because he believed in God.
Though Abraham believed, his mere believing isn’t what makes him righteous; because he believed, he can now take on the righteousness of Christ. So Abraham’s believing is a necessary but insufficient condition for Abraham being righteous. Do you agree?
Though, on my view, it was up to Abraham to believe or not, his act of believing itself is no work, and even though we can credit Abraham, in part for believing, the consequence of his believing-viz. taking on the righteousness of Christ, is not something Abraham can credit himself for.
I think the forensic model is helpful here. Suppose the the Judge says “someone else has atoned for your sins, do you accept?” If the defendant says, “Yes.” We can say correctly that, “He said “yes”, and therefore he as become atoned, in part, because he believed. But because the actual work of atonement was not his own, but another’s, he cannot credit himself for his own righteousness, though whether or not to be atoned was something he did choose.
You might insist: Paul says his faith is not “of himself”. In one sense this is true: Without the calling of the HS, Abraham couldn’t have had any faith-viz., the Holy Spirit is an enabling condition. But though the HS is a necessary condition, the HS’s enabling is not itself sufficient, for it is Abraham who believed and not HS; not the HS causing Abraham to believe.
his act of believing itself is no work
This is a very important point. We must understand exactly why believing is not a work, even though it is equally an act of the will of Abraham. Why is it that Paul contrasts the two so strongly? Why is faith so diametrically opposed to works?
The answer lies both in the object of saving faith and in the necessary flipside of saving faith – repentance. I would argue that the illustration you have provided is not wholly biblical and may be introducing some difficulty. Nowhere in Scripture do we see a sinner told that Christ atoned for their sin and then asked if they would like to accept it or not. What we read in Scripture is that all men everywhere are commanded to repent of their sin. They are also told that if they repent and place their faith in the work of Christ alone, they will be saved. Repentance is an essential part of saving faith. You cannot have one without the other.
I would also add that Abraham was not clothed in Christ’s righteousness as a result of his faith. Abraham’s faith was itself the putting on of Christ. I think the difference is very important. That is what is meant by faith being the instrumental cause of justification. I would also say that faith is much closer to someone (the Holy Spirit) notifying you (by monergistic regeneration) of the fact that your debt has been paid. It serves the function of a receipt for what has already been paid in full and nothing else is required.
The London Baptist Confession states this very well when it says:
Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.
What is repentance and how is it related to saving faith? Repent means to change your mind. It means to change your mind about who you are and who Christ is. It means to turn away from trust in yourself and place your trust in Christ alone.
I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”
This is why saving faith is so diametrically opposed to works – because saving faith in Christ’s work means abandoning all faith in your work and worth and despising yourself as nothing.
So then, to bring this back around to your original illustration:
Suppose a repentant sinner says, “Look how righteous I am, won’t you congratulate me for being so righteous?” And the potter then says, “You don’t deserve any credit for being righteous because you are not. I am the one who is righteous; I am the one who should be praised for being righteous, and you have no right to claim any righteousness of your own.”
Suppose a repentant sinner says, “Look how righteous I am” is a contradiction. It is not possible. If someone says “look how righteous I am,” they are not repentant and do not have saving faith in Christ’s work and thus are not justified. This is what Christ teaches us in Luke 18:9-14
Here is an excellent (short) statement in regards to this:
Do Protestants Believe that True Faith = Faith + Works?
“This is a very important point. We must understand exactly why believing is not a work, even though it is equally an act of the will of Abraham. Why is it that Paul contrasts the two so strongly? Why is faith so diametrically opposed to works? ”
Yeah, we’re already going to part ways from here. From my reading of Paul, we could summarize works as:
(works) = S’s living/acting in accordance with the law.
(faith) = S’s trust in Christ.
Understood like so, though faith and works are both what proceed from Abraham’s will, it’s simply wrongheaded to think of faith as a work because of this similarity. Faith is simply when Abraham trusts God, and works are simply Abraham’s living in accordance with the law; and this difference is the one and only difference between “faith” and “works”, and this difference itself is what constitutes their “diametric” opposition.
“The answer lies both in the object of saving faith and in the necessary flipside of saving faith – repentance. I would argue that the illustration you have provided is not wholly biblical and may be introducing some difficulty. Nowhere in Scripture do we see a sinner told that Christ atoned for their sin and then asked if they would like to accept it or not. What we read in Scripture is that all men everywhere are commanded to repent of their sin. They are also told that if they repent and place their faith in the work of Christ alone, they will be saved. Repentance is an essential part of saving faith. You cannot have one without the other. ”
Right. Who said this? My view is that Christ’s work is sufficient for atoning S’s sin on the condition that they have faith. I.e., Sinners are told that their sins will be forgiven if they repent. And this is tantamount to saying that if S trusts in Christ’s blood (which would include repentance), then he shall be forgiven.”
“[…] Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.” (Mk 4:25)
“I would also add that Abraham was not clothed in Christ’s righteousness as a result of his faith. Abraham’s faith was itself the putting on of Christ.”
I agree here, but I don’t agree with what follows.
“I think the difference is very important. That is what is meant by faith being the instrumental cause of justification. I would also say that faith is much closer to someone (the Holy Spirit) notifying you (by monergistic regeneration) of the fact that your debt has been paid. It serves the function of a receipt for what has already been paid in full and nothing else is required.”
Nope. If faith (and repentance) are conditions for one to be forgiven, then I don’t know what it means to construe faith “as the notification that your debt has been paid.” Faith, again, is S’s trust in Christ and his atonement, and the result POST-FACTO is that S’s “debt has been forgiven.”
“What is repentance and how is it related to saving faith? Repent means to change your mind. It means to change your mind about who you are and who Christ is. It means to turn away from trust in yourself and place your trust in Christ alone. Job 42:5-6 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” This is why saving faith is so diametrically opposed to works – because saving faith in Christ’s work means abandoning all faith in your work and worth and despising yourself as nothing.”
We both agree that faith and repentance are coextensive; one who has faith is one who repented.
I do think, however, Job’s language ought to be qualified a bit. It’s true that we are absolutely nothing without God, since only He makes our very being possible. But, insofar as we have being, even in our fallen state, we are still made in God’s image, and Christ thought that we are worthy to be saved (Christ loved as, even as sinners), and hence if we weren’t worthy to be saved, Christ wouldn’t have gone through the trouble.
”So then, to bring this back around to your original illustration: Suppose a repentant sinner says, “Look how righteous I am, won’t you congratulate me for being so righteous?” And the potter then says, “You don’t deserve any credit for being righteous because you are not. I am the one who is righteous; I am the one who should be praised for being righteous, and you have no right to claim any righteousness of your own.” Suppose a repentant sinner says, “Look how righteous I am” is a contradiction. It is not possible. If someone says “look how righteous I am,” they are not repentant and do not have saving faith in Christ’s work and thus are not justified. This is what Christ teaches us in Luke 18:9-14”
I agree this all true for anyone who is saved by grace. My original issue is that if God unequivocally causes men to sin, then he cannot blame them for sinning, and if God unequivocally causes Job to be righteous, for instance, then he cannot be praised. So if someone goes to hell, it’s because they freely sinned and because they rejected Christ, and they deserve such a fate because God did not unequivocally cause them to reject Christ.
If we weren’t worthy to be saved, Christ wouldn’t have gone through the trouble.
Again, what disgusting pride!
“Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name…I will vindicate the holiness of my great name…And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord God; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.
I don’t know what it means to construe faith “as the notification that your debt has been paid.”
This is because you don’t understand the atonement and you reject monergistic regeneration.
My original issue is that if God unequivocally causes men to sin, then he cannot blame them for sinning
Ok, then just go back to my original response, and Paul’s:
So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
and if God unequivocally causes Job to be righteous, for instance, then he cannot be praised
Yes He can, and for all the reasons I just laid out, including the fact that Job is not MADE righteous. He is counted righteous.
Yes He can, and for all the reasons I just laid out, including the fact that Job is not MADE righteous. He is counted righteous.”
It’s clear from the account that Job not only had faith like Abraham did, but unlike Abraham, he lived completely in accordance with whatever the law required of him:
“[…] and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil.” (1:1)
I take the “blameless” and “upright” part of the conjunction to be describing Job’s works: he never did anything wrong and did everything correctly. If your not convinced that this is right, then the whole narrative loses it’s potency, for Job’s friends are trying to find the one thing Job did wrong to explain his misfortune. That is, they are trying to construe what happened to him as an instance of God’s justice, as opposed to the unjust suffering of an unequivocally innocent man.
I take the “feared God” part of the conjunction to be describing Job’s faith in God.
So, on my account, God deems Job “blameless” because it was up to Job whether or not to sin (God didn’t unequivocally cause his blamelessness), and hence, we think Job is praiseworthy.
But, counterfactually, suppose that Job did sin yet feared (had faith) in God. He would then be in Abraham’s “camp”, where his faith would be “accounted to him for righteousness.”
Looking at the big picture.
I think that everything is causally dependent on God, in the sense that anything whatever is made possible by God’s existence.
So suppose that Adam resisted the temptation of the Serpent, or suppose, as is actually the case, that Job didn’t do anything wrong. We can praise Job and Adam because it was up to them whether or not they decided to be good. We can praise them because of their choices. They can say, rightly, that “God won’t punish us for our sins, for we have none.” Of course, they still must acknowledge that God is what made their righteousness possible, so they could never say, even if they never sin, “We don’t need God because we made the right choices.” Any righteous man who never sins still would acknowledge that his righteousness is derived from God.
But suppose that Adam sinned, like he actually did, and that Job sinned, though he actually didn’t. Because they sin, and God didn’t cause them to sin, then God rightfully punishes them with death, “for the wages of sin is death.” Paul’s whole story, I think, is this: even though they didn’t live in accordance with the law, they can be saved by grace, and take on an alien righteousness, if they have faith. Suppose that Adam has faith; then he will be saved. Suppose Job doesn’t; then, for the sins he chose to commit, and for rejecting Christ’s blood, he shall forever be left in his sin and the natural consequence that follow from it- i.e., damnation.
So at the back of this particular rejection of Calvinism lies pure Pelagianism and a refusal to despise oneself and repent in dust and ashes. In this instance, I agree with Ronald W. Di Giacomo when he says:
Now why won’t they [accept Calvinism]? Because the matter is ethical, not intellectual, that’s why. God has blinded the Arminian to the glorious doctrines of grace, which is why they say things like: “How can God find fault, for who can resist his will?” I’m afraid that Arminians don’t recognize that Romans nine is speaking to them.
If you aren’t from Boise, or don’t know who John Delling is, read this article to get up to speed.
“A Tragic Journey”
I grew up with Dave Boss. This is not some unrelated news headlines with abstract questions.
The Ada County court has determined that John Delling is not competent to stand trial for his murders, though he may be in the future.
BOISE — Everyone agrees – accused killer John Delling is not competent to stand trial at this time. That determination was first made by a court-appointed psychologist earlier this month… Delling has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and is deemed unfit for trial.
Idaho is one of three states with no insanity defense, although mental illness can be used as a mitigating factor in sentencing and defendants must be mentally competent to stand trial.
In 1982, the Idaho Legislature banned the use of insanity as a defense amid the national outcry over the acquittal of would-be presidential assassin John Hinckley Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
Montana and Utah also ban the insanity defense, according to the American Bar Association.
The ban means insanity cannot be used as grounds for acquittal.
Mental health still can be used as a mitigating factor. The Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional to execute a person who is insane or mentally retarded. Defendants must understand the nature of the charges against them and be able to assist in their own defense to be competent to stand trial.
Delling has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and is deemed unfit for trial.
This was probably determined by statements like the following:
“I didn’t have any intent to kill people, let me put it that way,” he told The Idaho Statesman. “I’m pretty much possessed. I have no control over my body.”…
In Monday’s interview from the Ada County Jail in Boise, Delling told reporters he had been sexually and mentally abused during his childhood and that another person was involved in the killings.
Authorities say that claim is part of his delusions. “There’s nothing to indicate that anyone else was involved other than John Delling,” said Andrea Dearden, a spokeswoman for the county sheriff’s office.
Jay Adams, in his book “The Christian Counselor’s Handbook,” has this to say about schizophrenia:
This is a poor word. The term is similar to the words “red nose.” One may have the latter for any number of reasons; boozing, growing a pimple on it, getting punched in it, or getting it sunburned. Schizophrenia, like the words “red nose,” is a non-specific term that says nothing of causes but speaks only of effects (bizarre or strongly unpleasant behavior). Its use, particularly as the designation for a so-called mental illness, out to be discontinued. Hoffer and Osmand are unwise to use this word to speak of a specific organic bodily malfunction… Karl Menninger recently quipped, “Schizophrenia to me is just a nice greek word.” (12 Admissions of Mental Error)
That was a footnote taken from Adams’ chapter on the subject and I encourage everyone to read the whole context in the link above and post your thoughts.
The follow link also elaborates on Delling’s thoughts. He posted the following comment on a website a couple years ago:
Subject: Demon possession
Posted By: John Delling
The last thing I remember was that saying GOD gave me strength and power. SO I am hoping to get some answers, Poeple [sic]/demons have done things to me that have lead me to where I have no Human emotions or memories. I feel very weak and can’t think feel or remember, I believe that I have died. There is a repetitive theme in my mind that I saw the future and people will wipe my mind and wake me hours later, NOT JOKING PLEASE LISTEN, If I wear a yellow shirt. I have been attacked and abused, discriminated against by many people for no apparent reason, there was a weird event about poeple [sic] putting jew and nazi memories in my mind and then this guy named sweeney which is the name of a person who dropped one of the bombs on the second plane, I guess he may be a relative, put a whole lot of the yellow spinning energy into my solar plexus and then I was sacrificed by possibly a vampire cult as the Sun King or something like that.
THis sounds crazy but please tell me haw I can feel and remember things again. like short term memory especially Thank you.
Someone posted the following comment on the page:
It sounds as though John Delling could be a paranoid schizophrenic. If that is the case, he is a victim as well. These types of patients cannot control themselves without medication, and if he (or those around him) did not understand his situation and seek medical help then he was bound to slide to the depths he eventually succombed to.
The question arises: How do courts determine who is fit and who is unfit to be tried for their crimes?
BOISE – Doctors say proving someone is mentally incompetent is a complicated process .
“It’s a complex look at past, present and the risk for future dangerous behavior,” said Charles Novak, a local psychiatrist.
Over the past year there have been many sensational murder cases.
John Delling is charged with killing two men.
Todd Hagnas pleaded guilty to killing his two roommates and burying them in his bench home before setting it on fire and who can forget 17 year old Ethan Windom, who brutally beat and stabbed his mother to death.
So, why did Delling’s mental evaluation diagnose him as not competent to stand trial while Hagnas and Windom were found competent?
“The main element is that at some level the people understand and truly do know the difference between what’s right and what’s wrong,” Novak said.
Here are the facts you need to know first, a defendant is evaluated
if a doctor finds them incapable of assisting in their defense and they have no understanding of the charges they’re facing, then they’re found incompetent to stand trial.
“There’s no simple way to figure it out,” Novak said.
So here I present a few questions to you: If someone is diagnosed to be schizophrenic because they are unable to determine between what is right and what is wrong, what standard are we using to judge them by?
Second, if someone is unable to determine between right and wrong, if they are unable to do what “we” say is right and unable to avoid doing what “we” say is wrong, are they responsible for not obeying “us”? From Delling’s perspective, these people were stealing his energy/aura/powers and he was trying to take it back. Should he be punished for having a different worldview than us? Should he be held responsible for his actions, especially if it is a result of abuse as a child?