Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Sin is still sin (and God is still good) even "if God makes you do it"

[The following is a response to an article by Rick Farwell entitled, "IF GOD MAKES YOU DO IT, THEN YOU'RE NOT SINNING" (http://thedifferentiator.net/IFGOD.HTML)] 

Mr. Farwell begins his article with the following quote by A.E. Knoch: 

"All evil which is done with due authority, such as paternal or political, whether inflicted by parents upon their children, or masters upon their servants, or the state on its subjects, or God on His creatures (of which the rest are but figures) loses its "immoral" quality because it is salutary and corrective. Its morality lies, not in the evil, but in the relation sustained between the one who inflicts and the one who suffers. Consequently, even moral evil, committed by criminal men, loses its immoral quality when referred back to the One Whose purpose was being effected by the evil and Who not only has the undoubted right to inflict it but Whose every act will yet receive the undivided applause of the universe."  

A.E. Knoch believed that sin and evil are an essential part of God's redemptive plan for creation, and that God is ultimately responsible for their existence in the universe. He also affirmed that God is perfectly good and benevolent, and thus has the best interests of all his creatures at heart (see, for example, Knoch's insightful work "The Problem of Evil," which can be read here: http://concordant.org/expositions/problem-evil-judgments-god-contents/). 

I agree with Knoch on this. My understanding is that what makes an intention or action sinful is the motive behind it. Because I believe God's motive in bringing about the circumstances that result in sin being committed by his creatures is entirely benevolent, God is entirely blameless in everything he does. The "immoral quality" of any choice made by a human or celestial being is found in the motive of the sinning creature, and not in the motive of God, who is sinless. This, I believe, is essentially what Knoch was affirming in the above quote. However, it needs to be stressed that, although I will be defending this position against some of the assertions made by Mr. Farwell in his article, it is not merely because Mr. Knoch (or anyone else) believed it. It is because my own study of Scripture and my own reflection on this subject over the years has brought me to the same conclusion concerning the "problem of evil" to which Mr. Knoch arrived.  

After some brief remarks concerning what Mr. Farwell believes to have influenced A.E. Knoch's theology (which, according to Mr. Farwell, was the "fatalistic teaching of the State Church of the Lutherans and the atheistic Rationalists"), Mr. Farwell goes on to assert, "Since God IS good, nothing He causes any of His created beings to do, even if it is said to be "evil" is a sin. Since God is GOOD, everything He creates in its original state will be good, because it is created "out of God", Who is Good."

Notice that Mr. Farwell first uses the word "good" in reference to God. Now, it is clear that, when used by Mr. Farwell to describe God, the word "good" has a moral or ethical meaning, and refers to God's perfectly sinless and righteous character or nature. But notice that Mr. Farwell then uses the same word to describe "everything [God] creates in its original state." Is it really Mr. Farwell's view that "everything" that was created by God was originally "good" in the same sense that God is good? I doubt it. For in the sense that Mr. Farwell is saying that God is "good" (which refers to God's perfectly righteous character), "good" can be applied only to moral/rational/intelligent beings. It would be nonsense to say that rocks, trees, clouds, goats and stars are "good" in the same sense that God is good, or in the sense that Jesus Christ is good. The word "good" does not mean the same thing when used in reference to amoral things and animals as it does when used in reference to moral beings. So it seems that Mr. Farwell is being somewhat careless with his words here, and is (unintentionally, I'm sure) guilty of the informal logical fallacy known as "equivocation."

But what about Farwell's assertion that "nothing [God] causes any of His created beings to do...is a sin?" Does this follow necessarily from the fact that God is good? I don't think so. Suppose that, before sin had ever been introduced into the universe, God chose to bring into existence a being whose character and disposition was such that he was incapable of not sinning. Suppose also that God's motive in bringing about this state of affairs (i.e., the introduction of sin into the universe through the creation of a being who cannot help but sin) was completely pure and benevolent, and that the creation of this sinful being will ULTIMATELY contribute to the maximum glorification of God and the maximum happiness of every created being, both in the heavens and on earth.

Now, Mr. Farwell, of course, doesn't believe any of this. The above scenario is purely hypothetical, as far as he is concerned. And that's fine. But unless Mr. Farwell can show that the scenario described above is implicitly or explicitly contradicted by Scripture - or that it is somehow incoherent and logically impossible - then Mr. Farwell's belief that God's goodness is inconsistent with his causing a created being to sin is not something which anyone need feel Biblically (or rationally) obligated to share. Mr. Farwell would have to show that it is either contradicted by Scripture or that it is somehow logically impossible for sin to in any way contribute to the glorification of God or to the ultimate happiness of all in order for his conclusion to necessarily follow. And I honestly don't think Mr. Farwell (or anyone else) could prove such a thing. But apart from Mr. Farwell's being able to prove this, no one need agree with his assertion. For if (as I believe can be reasonably inferred from Scripture) God's purpose to glorify himself and bring about the maximum happiness of all requires the (temporary) existence of sin and evil in the universe, then God would be fully justified (and would remain fully benevolent and good) in bringing about such a state of affairs to achieve his goal. If the end result is the maximizing of God's glory and the securing of the best interests of all - and if this end result cannot be realized apart from the temporary existence of sin and evil in the universe - then God would be fully justified in bringing this about. The end, in this case, WOULD justify the means.  

Mr. Farwell then quotes the passages from Genesis where God pronounces his creation "good" and "very good." But these pronouncements by God had absolutely nothing to do with the ethical/moral goodness of the creation. God was not saying, "Creation is morally good and blameless in character, just like me." For if that were the case, then it would mean that, for the period of time during which Adam was alone (Gen. 2:18), creation was morally impure and sinful (for notice that God said it was "NOT GOOD that the man should be alone...")! But that, of course, is ridiculous. The fact is that God was not talking about the moral goodness of his creation here. 

The Hebrew word translated "good" is ṭôb, and carries the same broad range of meaning as the English word "good" (see, for example, Strong's definition). For example, we're later told that God "made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good (ṭôb) for food" (Gen 2:9; cf. 3:6). Obviously, the "goodness" of these trees had nothing to do with their moral/ethical character (for they had none). Their being "good for food" simply meant that they were desirable, suitable or fit for food. Similarly, God's creation was "very good" simply in that it was perfectly suited to accomplish his divine purpose. It was favorable for the accomplishment of his purpose, and in accord with what he desired it to be. God's appraisal of his creation as "very good," then, was a value judgment. It was his approval of his creation as being in accord with what he desired it to be, and as perfectly suited for its chosen function. 

Mr. Farwell goes on to say, "If everything Satan did was the result of God doing it, it would be impossible for him to SIN (miss the mark), if what Adam did in the garden, by eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, was God's doing, then it wouldn't have been a sin, or transgression, or disobedience, or an offense against God, since Adam would have only been doing God's will, and since God is Good, and not an evil being, or a criminal organization, it could not have been rebellion, it would have been following God's orders, doing the will of God, even His intention." 

Sin, according to the apostle John, is "lawlessness" (1 John 3:4). At its heart, sin is essentially a violation of what Christ called the two greatest precepts or commandments, on which he said depend (or are "hanging") all the law and the prophets: "You shall be loving the Lord your God with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, and with you whole comprehension," and "You shall be loving your associate as yourself" (Mark 12:28-31). According to Paul, to love another is to fulfill God's law, and the saying "You shall love your associate as yourself" (which in James 2:8 is called the "royal law") sums up God's precepts (Rom 13:8-10). John even goes so far as to say that anyone who professes to love God while failing to love his brother is a liar (John 4:19-21). To love God requires that one love one's associates as one loves oneself. Whenever one is failing to do this, one is guilty of "lawlessness," and is thus sinning. 

But what if one's failure to love God and to love others is ultimately due to circumstances outside of one's control (and which were ultimately brought about by God himself)? Does a failure to keep these precepts cease to be sin just because God is the ultimate explanation for why one is failing to do this? I see no good reason why this should be the case. Regardless of the ultimate explanation for WHY one is failing to love God and one's associates (whether it's in accordance with God's sovereign purpose, or the result of the "free will" of his creatures, as Mr. Farwell seems to believe), the fact is that the failure of any moral being to keep these precepts makes them a sinner. So it's simply not true that a person cannot be considered a sinner simply because God is ultimately responsible (and the ultimate explanation) for what they do and why they do it. For again, sin essentially consists in a violation of God's precepts to love him supremely and to love one's associate as oneself. A failure to love God supremely and to love one's associate as oneself doesn't cease to be sin/lawlessness just because God is the ultimate explanation for WHY one is failing to love. A failure to keep these precepts is, at its essence, precisely what sin IS.  

Thus, contrary to the view of Mr. Farwell, sin is sin regardless of whether it is a part of God's plan for a being to sin, or not. If God's plan involved the creation of a spiritual being whose character and disposition is such that he can't help but fail to love God and human beings, this being would still be a sinner. His failure to love God and the human beings within the sphere of his influence wouldn't cease to be sinful merely because it was God's will that he have this sinful character. Nor would his sinful actions cease to be sinful merely because he is acting in accord with the counsel of God's will. 

Consider, for example, the activity of Satan as described in the opening chapters of the book of Job. Were not Satan's actions in accord with the counsel of God's will? I'm not sure how this could be denied. Had it not been God's will that Satan do what he did, he could have (and would have) prevented Satan from doing it. God was just as capable of taking away Satan's power and authority (or even having him thrown into the lake of fire) in Job's day as he will be in the future. But this God did not do. Instead, God gave Satan the full authority to do exactly what he (Satan) ended up doing. Satan's actions after he left the divine throne room did not take God by surprise. God had perfect knowledge of Satan's character and disposition, and knew exactly what he would do if given the opportunity. There was nothing that Satan did that God did not fully expect him to do, and which he did not give him the authority to do; consequently, everything that Satan did must be understood as being in accord with the counsel of God's will. And it should be noted that Job himself understood all the evil that he suffered as ultimately coming from God, and as being in accord with God's will: "Yahweh gave, and Yahweh has taken away; blessed be the name of Yahweh" (Job 1:21-22). "Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10).  

Now, I believe that God is good, and that everything he does is in the best interests of all his creatures. Consequently, his motive in giving Satan the authority to do what he did was perfectly pure. But what was Satan's motive in doing what he did? Did he do it out of love for God and for Job? I don't see any good reason to believe that he did. Instead, we have every reason to believe that Satan's heart was just as full of malice as it was when he tempted Eve in the garden of Eden. When Satan took almost everything of value away from Job (including his children), it was not because he loved God. Nor was it because he loved Job as he loved himself. Satan's actions were not motivated by love for God or Job, but rather by a malicious desire to expose Job as one who didn't really love God. His desire was that Job would, in response to the adversity brought upon him, curse God to his face (Job 1:9-11; 2:5). In other words, what Satan did was sinful; he did not have Job's best interests at heart. And his actions did not cease to be sinful merely because they were in accord with the counsel of God's will.  

Consider also Christ's temptation by Satan in the wilderness. Did Satan do what he did at this time out of a love for Christ? Did he have Christ's best interests at heart? Were his motives pure and in harmony with what Christ called the greatest precepts? No; we have every reason to believe that Satan's desire was that Christ yield to every temptation presented to him, and that he take Satan up on his offer, and worship him in exchange for all the kingdoms of the world and their glory (Matt 4:8-9). 

Satan's actions during this time were undoubtedly sinful and wicked, and betrayed a lack of love for both God and his Son. And yet, it was evidently in accord with God's will that Satan do exactly what he did, for it was the spirit that led Jesus into the wilderness to be tried by Satan (Matt. 4:1; Mark 1:12). Had it not been God's will for Jesus to undergo this trial by Satan, the spirit would not have led Jesus into the wilderness to be tried by him. Thus, we have yet another example of the sinful activity of Satan being in accord with the counsel of God's will. 

In response to the position that Satan began his existence in a sinful state, Mr. Farwell writes: "When did Satan, first LIE? When did he become a MAN-KILLER? Well, the first man was Adam, so Satan couldn't have been a man-killer before there was a man to kill." 

With regards to Satan's being a sinner, one of the following must be true: either he was created by God with a sinful character/disposition, OR he began his existence in a morally pure/upright (or morally neutral) state, and then acquired a sinful character/disposition later on. Although both positions cannot be true, both views are consistent with the position that God is sovereign over all circumstances, and is thus ultimately responsible for Satan's present sinfulness. For regardless of which view is correct, it could be affirmed that God is ultimately responsible for Satan's being a sinner. With that said, I believe that Scripture affirms the former view. 

It is clearly stated in Scripture that Satan has been sinning "from the beginning" (1 John 3:8) and that Satan has been a man-killer "from the beginning" (John 8:44). From the beginning of what? Evidently, the beginning of his creation, or existence. When Christ used the same expression in reference to Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6), the "beginning" in view refers to the time of their creation - i.e., the beginning of their existence. When used in reference to Satan, therefore, it is most natural to understand the "beginning" to refer to the time of his creation - i.e., the beginning of his existence. 

But how could Satan be a "man-killer" before there were human beings in existence to kill? First, it should be noted that a person could be considered a murderer or "man-killer" without actually killing anyone. This is evident from the apostle John, who taught that anyone who has hatred for his brother is a man-killer (1 John 3:15). Thus, being a "man-killer" concerns the malicious disposition of a person's heart, and not necessarily the act of taking someone's life. Second, if God's intention in creating Satan was that he would be the adversary of mankind and would desire and seek their destruction and ruin, then it would be true to say that Satan was a "man-killer from the beginning." For being a "man-killer" - i.e., being one who hates and seeks the destruction and ruin of human beings - would be the purpose and role for which Satan was created by God (at least, with regards to the eons). Thus, Satan can be said to have been a man-killer from the beginning if (in accordance with God's "purpose of the eons") he was created by God with a sinful and malicious disposition that is antagonistic and hostile towards human beings, and which caused him to seek their destruction and ruin as soon as they were created.  

But again, it should be emphasized that, regardless of whether one believes that Satan began his existence as a sinful being or not, one can still affirm that (1) God is ultimately responsible for Satan's being a sinner, and (2) God is good, and does only that which is in the best interests of all his creatures. 

Mr. Farwell goes on to say, "And if Satan had been doing God's work in the Garden, he wouldn't have sinned, and if what he said to Eve had been God's words, then he wouldn't have been a father of lies or a liar."

If God's sovereign plan for Satan in the garden was that Satan act in a way that was unloving toward the human beings within the sphere of his influence, it would neither make God unloving nor make Satan loving. Satan's antagonism toward humanity doesn't become love just because it is in accord with God's plan. His failure to love the human creatures within the sphere of his influence is still sin, even if God was ultimately responsible for his being this way. Similarly, if God's sovereign plan required that Satan speak falsehoods to Eve in the garden, it would neither make God a liar nor make Satan a truth-teller. Satan's lies don't become truths just because his being "a liar and the father of it" is in accord with God's sovereign plan. 

In the final paragraph of his article, Mr. Farwell says, "So, the solution to this (sin-evil problem) is not in some sort of Calvinist-Fatalistic nightmare in which the only One Who is GOOD, is really not so good after all, and is a "the end justifies the means" Deity (differing little from a manipulating narcissist). No, the solution is that God has delegated certain abilities to some of His creatures, and given a certain freedom in areas where they will be judged according to what they have done with these powers and abilities (this is why Libertarian Free Will exists within these creatures—man and celestial beings)."  

Opponents of the Biblical position that all is out of God (Rom 11:36) frequently deride this view as "fatalism," or as being "fatalistic." Is this a fair charge or description of this position? Fatalism says, "Whatever is, must be." This philosophical position does not take into account the existence of a personal (let alone a wise and benevolent) God or the unfolding of an all-encompassing divine plan. One popular definition of fatalism is, "The belief that events are determined by an impersonal fate and cannot be changed by human beings." In contrast to this view, Scripture affirms that it is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ - not a blind, impersonal fate - who is operating all in accord with the counsel of his will (Eph 1:11).

Although Mr. Farwell is clearly not a fan of "fatalism," he evidently has no problem believing in something that is equally philosophical in nature: "libertarian free will." Since I've already written an article against this position (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-critical-look-at-christian-doctrine.html), there's no need to spend much time on the subject here. As I demonstrate in my article, any choices that are "free" in the libertarian sense would be nothing more than events of a completely random nature, and any being who is "free" in the libertarian sense would essentially be a random event generator. Any future event which is uncertain (and thus only possibly one way or another) from the perspective of not only God's creatures but God himself must necessarily be understood as a purely chance event

Consider, for example, the movement of a quantum particle. If it is uncertain to God whether a particle will swerve to the left or to the right, then its swerving to the left or to the right would be a purely random event from God's perspective. Whether it went one direction or another would, from God's perspective, be a matter of pure chance. And since God's perspective is the ultimate and absolute perspective, any such event would, absolutely speaking, be completely random and (therefore) inexplicable. There would be no reasonable explanation that God could provide as to why one outcome was actualized rather than the other. And the same, I believe, would go for any choices made by his creatures IF such choices were "free" in the libertarian sense. 

If it is uncertain to God how a human or angelic being will exercise their libertarian free will - if God is unable to know with certainty the outcome of such a volitional event - then the being's choice would be a purely random event, absolutely speaking. It would not be random and inexplicable merely in the sense that no finite being with limited knowledge could predict it. No, it would be random and inexplicable in that not even God himself could predict it. And if God himself could not predict such a volitional event and know with certainty what the outcome would be, a reasonable explanation as to why one choice was made rather than another would be impossible, even for God. The volitional event and its outcome would be inexplicable and utterly random in nature. Thus, in the attempt to relieve God of the responsibility for evil in the world and "free" people from his absolute control over all things, those who believe in "libertarian free will" end up making us all slaves to pure chance and randomness.

Mr. Farwell goes on to say, "God did a very difficult thing in giving His creation a great amount of liberty, it proved very costly, for many times God was grieved (even to the point of wiping out all but eight people in a flood) as only a Good and Loving Being could be when His creatures misuse their gifts and become lost, and relinquish some of their power to others."

It would seem to be Mr. Farwell's belief that God's being described as grieving or regretting the decisions of his creatures supports his position that they have "libertarian free will." The example Mr. Farwell uses is the regret/grief God is described as having in response to the wickedness of mankind prior to the flood. Now, it would seem that Mr. Farwell is a proponent of the philosophical/theological position known as "Open Theism" (or is at least sympathetic towards this position). According to Open Theism, much of the future is "open" (i.e., uncertain) from God's perspective until human and angelic beings exercise their "libertarian free will." According to Open Theism, much of the future depends on the "free will" choices of humans and angelic beings for its becoming "settled." Until then, the future is "open" and only POSSIBLY this way or that way - not just from the relative perspective of human and angelic beings (which would be the case even if the future was settled from God's perspective), but from the absolute perspective of God himself. However, even an Open Theist would have to admit the absurdity of thinking that, after Adam and Eve failed to resist a single temptation from Satan in the garden of Eden, God would have expected subsequent generations of human beings to fare any better under much less ideal and favorable circumstances. 

Scripture affirms that God declares "the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10), that all is "out of" and "through" God (Rom 11:36), and that God is operating "all things in accord with the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:10). This being the case, we can conclude that God knew how corrupt mankind was going to become in Noah's day before he created mankind, or even before he created the heavens and the earth. Nothing that took place prior to the flood took God by surprise, or was in any way contrary to his expectation. 

What then of God's being represented as grievously regretting his decision to make man? This is likely an example of the literary device known as anthropomorphism. God's "regret" should not be understood any more literally than what we read in Gen 2:9 (where God is represented as being ignorant of Adam's location in the garden of Eden), Gen 9:13-17 (where God sets the rainbow in the sky in order "to remember the age-abiding covenant" he made with Noah), or Gen 18:20-21 (where God speaks as if he doesn't have full knowledge of the past or present). God is described as regretting his decision to create mankind to give emphasis to the radical wickedness and corruption of mankind at this time and to the unexpected, cataclysmic event that was about to transpire to remedy this problem.

Moreover, it should be noted that, according to Mr. Farwell's view, it was always a possibility to God that mankind would become as evil as they became prior to the flood. And yet God (according to Mr. Farwell) apparently valued man's "libertarian free will" enough to take that risk! Thus, the God of Libertarian Free Will/Open Theism allowed for this possibility when he willed to create a world in which such a possibility might be actualized. In order to achieve what he viewed to be a greater good, he preferred that such a thing be possible rather than not possible. Thus, God is just as much an"end justifies the means Deity" according to Mr. Farwell's position as he is according to the position that he opposes. According to Mr. Farwell's position, there would have been no evil apart from God's decision to give his creatures "libertarian free will." 

Apparently, God valued the existence and exercise of such "freedom" more than he valued a world in which evil could not and would not be actualized, and thus considered the creation of beings with this sort of "freedom" worth the risk of evil being actualized in every possible way in which it has been (and will be) actualized. According to Mr. Farwell's view, then, our having libertarian free will is a "greater good" that justifies the possibility of (what he would probably consider to be) gratuitous evil. God's creating a world in which gratuitous evil is possible should, therefore (according to Mr. Farwell's view), be considered a necessary means to an end - i.e., the realization of a "greater good" that could not be realized apart from the existence of libertarian free will (and thus apart from the possibility of gratuitous evil). 

According to what Mr. Farwell seems to believe, God's plan and expectation when he created the heavens and the earth was that his creation would remain forever free from sin. If this is the case, then we have a sad and pathetic God indeed - a God who is more deserving of our pity than our praise. For if this were God's plan and expectation, then he experienced - and is continuing to experience - the greatest disappointment imaginable. And not only that, but we would have no good reason to put our trust in God. We could have no assurance that the ultimate redemptive purpose of God will ever be accomplished if anything has ever happened contrary to his plan and expectation - especially if that which was contrary to his plan and expectation was the introduction of sin and evil into the universe. If, however, God's sovereign plan all along was that sin and evil would enter his creation, remain for a time, and then be abolished through the redemptive work of his Son, then his plan is truly the expression of a perfectly wise, competent and good Being.


  1. Aaron, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being best, your response merits a 20. Very well put on every point! I commend you dear brother! Good, no, great response.

    Just a thought concerning the giving of the law: When God gave the law to Israel and they covenanted to keep the law and should they not keep the law then the curses of the law would come upon them, did God make them not keep the law? I think the answer to that would be in the affirmative for is it not written:

    "For the disposition of the flesh is death, yet the disposition of the spirit is life and peace, (7) because the disposition of the flesh is enmity to God, for it is not subject to the law of God, for neither is it able." (8) Now those who are in flesh are not able to please God" (Romans 8:6-8).

    God created those Israelites and humanity for that fact, flesh knowing full well in advance that Israel could not keep the law and could not please God. Yet God purposely gave them the law and covenanted with them knowing this. So in fact, God was responsible for them not keeping the law and was responsible for bringing the curses of the law upon them. And yet God is still good because He did it to prove to them they could not keep the law and it was to escort them to Christ.

    The same in the garden. God created Adam and Eve as fleshly beings knowing full well they could not please Him nor be subject to the law He laid down in the garden "Thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." He knew and not only knew but precipitated their disobedience by putting the serpent in the garden to delude Eve. This was all to sweep mankind into sin and death but to bring forth a Saviour to save them from sin and death.

  2. Thanks for the encouraging words, Tony! And regarding your comments on the giving of the law and the sin of Adam, I agree with you 100%.

  3. Aaron, I second Tony's comments above in his first paragraph. This is a brilliant refutation of what I consider to be Farwell's insanity. How few today--even among those who claim to be teachers--possess the acumen for logical thought. I ran out of fingers keeping track of Farwell's fallacies, but you have not only kept track of them, you have dissected and refuted them for public gaze. For this, I thank you! --Martin Zender

  4. It seems that Rick's view is that our God is unsure about everything important. His Open Theism god is ultimately as much a spectator to creation as we are. If his god is so unsure about everything then I wonder how this god could be certain that he is not just a small god being manipulated by a higher power. Why question if such a god is the author of evil when you can't first be certain that He is really the God with an upper case G. Rick's Open Theist god lacks Omniscience. Such a god cannot be absolutely certain of his supremacy. So I must ask why would it matter if it is really sin when God is ultimately responsible. Rick's god can't be ultimately responsible for anything if he can't be 100% sure of and control all important outcomes. Rick's god is small. Rick has to make him small so he can fit into his theological box.

  5. Wish I could refute lesser but also.poisonus positions in my neck of the woods with less accumen.Thank God for you guys you help me stay allert!here in Camden s.c.Aaron.God willing I'll be patient until he opens eyes then we'll rejoice in common.I'll rejoice now in hope.Peace and Love in spirit My brothers.