God’s Eternal Decree
---> October 2nd, 2005 by annie
A comment on my “Anxious Heart” post caused me to ruminate again over the issue of predestination the last week. ‘Coincidentally’ our sunday school class studied this week the part of the Westminster Confession dealing with this doctrine. Although, in truth, I have found some of the commentary we are using to be a bit overly dogmatic on some points, G. I. Williamson wrote an excellent, concise, forthright articulation of the doctrine concerning God’s soverign action and human liberty.
Consistantly I have found that those who bristle against the doctrine of predestination do so on emotional grounds, at least initially. Certainly Biblical arguments are made to support Arminianism, Pelagianism and Open Theism, but at root, the presupposition rests on an emotional repulsion at the idea of God being ultimately in control of human action. Although, as I wrote in the comments on the post refered to above, that I see a definate paradox on the issue on one level, yet in regards to Truth and doctrine as the Bible sets it forth, a strong affirmation of God’s soverignty in predestining history unavoidable. Williamson writes,
God is an infinite, eternal and unchangeable person. Therefore His plan or purpose must ever have been a part of his infinite, eternal and unchangeable existence. So Scripture testifies: “Known to God from eternity are all His works” (Acts 15:18). Scripture speaks of this as “the eternal purpose which He accomplished” (Eph. 3:11). It is an unchangeable purpose (Heb. 6:17). The infinity of it is seen in the fact that we are predestined “according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11)
Not only Biblically certain, but experientially necessary for life, holiness and peace. Williamson reminds us of Christ’s words,
Not even a sparrow “falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will” (Matt. 10:29) and that even “the haris of your head are all numbered” (v. 30).
It is on the basis of God’s soverignty and eternal decree that we have peace and hope. It is because God, who has revealed Himself to be good and just and loving beyond measure, is in control that we might sleep at night without fear. It is because He is utterly omnipotent and even in control of my own life and actions that I do not have to live in fear of myself and my own neruosis, destructive habits and weaknesses.
As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13, we see through a mirror darkly and some magnificent doctrines clearly given to us don’t make perfect sense. Consider the incarnation; Christ was and is both fully human and fully divine. That cannot make total sense to our finite, limited minds, yet we must affirm its truth. It is not a falsehood that we hold stubbornly to, but a paradoxical truth that sets us free and brings us life. The doctrine of the Trinity assuredly challenges the greatest minds, yet its truth in scripture we cannot deny. Holy God, three in one. This profound, paradoxical truth staggers the imagination, and yet in our lives it proves wonderfully relevant. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches us that relationship and love originate in God Himself from eternity past. As we participate in relationship, we participate in the very being of God. It is a holy and endlessly complex doctrine that our minds cannot this side of eternity if ever hope to wrap themselves around. Yet there are those who would deny these doctrines based on their offensiveness to practical human sensibility. Fully man and fully God? Perposterous! Three persons in one God? Ridiculous! Human action predestined by God? Offensive!
Though I have sympathized with resistance to the doctrine of predestination for years, in good conscience I no longer can. Although in the mess of human experience, pain and desire it sometimes makes little sense and causes God to seem cruel, yet its truth has become undeniable. Not only undeniable but indeed even precious. As God through life and His refining fire teaches me, I see more and more the truth that “There is none, no not one who seeks God,” and that “The heart is desperately wicked and decietful above all else, who can understand it?”. It is with these premises that one must begin in understanding the true nature of God’s soverignty. So long as we think that within man, of his own power and being, some true goodness, we will not ever understand aright or accept the working of God’s eternal decees. If you don’t yet see human nature as utterly corrupt, go no further. Become a student of humanity, not of the stories you read in edited television or media. Watch real people.
It does not take a Christian to see the truth of human nature. The staunchest athiest I ever knew argued me into accepting the Bible’s teaching on human nature. He spent hours showing me how every action and motivation of people stems from selfishness. Even the desire to do good, nice things originates out of a selfish desire for that good feeling, or a selfish desire to end the pain I feel of watching said terrible situation. It is truly a miracle of God when He makes them to forget themselves long enough to have a pure motivation in doing the good He enables them to do.
I am passionate about this doctrine, even though it is controversial and sometimes made to be devisive, because it is precious and intimatel connected with the character of God. We fear and are repulsed by predestination when we see humans as more ethically good than God. We reject this doctrine when we see humans as the poor people manipulated by a cold, borg-like God determining without sympathy who will live and who will die. We reject predestination when we question the very character of God in favor of the character of men, and that has come to deeply grieve me. God has never in my life failed me. He has been undeservedly gracious to me a thousand times over. He has rescued me and patiently endured my 28 years of rebellion, whinning and coldness toward Him. People have many times failed me, often and deeply. People, even those I love most, hurt me reject me, and lie to me daily. And I have done the same to them. How can I find more comfort and more truth in a theology that favors the character of men above the character of God?
I believe this is partly why God eternally decreed to send His Son to the cross. How can I look at the character of God revealed on the cross and question His goodness in all that He does. As a man of flesh and blood, fully human, with every nerve ending in tact, He came and endured such horror to make us His own, to give us any kind of hope at all. How can I believe in the Christ of the cross and not sing praises that such a God is completely soverign, decreeing from eternity past the end from the beginning? How can I not find comfort and rejoicing in the Turth that wicked man is not in control but righteous Christ?
The doctrine of predestination becomes most repulsive when it is overtaken by men who love to systematize and crush the fragile balance of paradox. That is why I do not like to call myself a Calvinist. I have no use for the limited atonement. (Perhaps God shall teach me better as I grow more in Him. Tulip lovers be calm!). I don’t see that doctrine spelled out in scripture as the soverignty of God clearly is. It is perhaps a logical deduction, but for what use? To brag to those you think unsaved that Christ died for you and not for them? I think it is wise to remain within the bounds of scripture. I do not think that all logical deductions made from scripture carry the same level of authority as those explicitly stated, because the men making the logical deductions are still fallen sinners whose wickeness affects how clearly they deduce. Very logical men have disagreed on many a point. Although on other doctrines, Williamson seems to tend towards being one of these men, yet on this issue, He states the matter well;
The free actions of men are also predestined by God/ Please note: these acts are both free and predestined. That is, those who commit these acts do so because they want to. And yet the acts which they do are predetermined by God so that Scripture says they must happen. Christ said, “Offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!” (Matt. 18:7)
Freedom may be defined as “the absence of external coercion.” IF a man is not forced by any power outside himself to do that which is contraty to what he wants to do, then we may properly say that he is “free.” The wonder of God’s predestination is that God does leave men free in this sense, even though he predestines everything that every man will ever do. Some people use the word “freedom” in another sense, however, which is false in the extreme. They mean, by the “freedom” of man, that man has power or ability to do good or evil at any moment of time. To say that a man is able to do good or evil is very different from saying that a man is at liverty to do what he desires. We believe that the natural man has liberty but not ability to do what is right. For the truth is that man, while free from coercion from the outside, is not free from the control of his own nature.” . . .
We ask two simple questions: a) Does God know for certain what will happen before it happens? All Christians would no doubt say yes. [Except for Open Theists now! I cannot but argue that Open Theism is the logical extention and conclusion of a rejection of predestination.] b)But if GOd knows that a thing is certain to happen before it happens, we may then ask, what makes it certain? There can be but one answer: God makes it certain. We are unable to escape the conclusion that God foresees with certainty only because H guarantees the certainty He foresees.
Why argue this doctrine on a blog designed for mothers? For one, I think about it a great deal, it is important to me, and I am a mother. Secondly, and most importantly, because my mother rejected this doctrine (still does) and it greatly affected my upbringing. Because my mother always questioned the goodness of God and asumed the best about people, clinging to the idea that everyone is really good inside, she made many foolish choices that affected our family adversely. I lived in a home with a fairly high level of chaos. I also inherited the legacy of well-fed pride. I was really pretty good, wasn’t I? My desires were really deep down pure, so why submit myself to God’s silly rules that didn’t make sense. Thus, another consequence of her theology was that we girls were not taught how to draw proper boundaries. God’s laws always seemed to have a good bit of wiggle room to accomidate my sincere good intentions. Always asuming the best about others and ourselves, we constantly walked into unedifying relationships and situations that could have been avoided had we honored God. What’s worse, a doubt of God’s essential goodness was communicated more strongly than persevering trust. Was God really good? No one knew for certain in my home. He seemed to keep sending these poor good people all these trials and hardships. He kinda seemed like a tough nosed football coach. Lastly, prayer always seemed a bit of idle time, because if humans are the ones making the bottom line decisions, would my time be better spent trying to influence humans than praying to God? And when I did pray, it was an attempt to influence God to act and change His mind, not a prayer to remind myself of and rest in His soverign grace. I still wrestle with this final legacy of Arminian doctrine.
As I raise my daughters, I am earnest in my desire for them to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves; for them to know, without fear, the nature of all men, so that they will make wise choices as well as learn humility concerning themselves. Most importantly, I want my children to be saturated in the knowledge that God is absolutely, unwaveringly good and He is mighty. The only way to make it through this life a triumphant warrior, who dares to do sacrificial good and who dares to love the unlovable is to know that God is absolutely love and He is absolutely mighty. He is fully able to accomplish His good purpose. Thank God that the fickle will of man will not divert His good plan. Thank God that He does not bow to my own sad, unfaithful heart but promises to deliver me into His kingdom one day as a good and faithful servant, one ravished by His unrelenting love.
Please pardon and feel free to note spelling and gramatical errors. If I edited my posts, I would never get them done!
Posted in Theology | 
October 2nd, 2005 at 11:55 pm
Well, this mom appreciated the post!
I have walked a similar path from Arminianism. I understand what you are saying completely…until I embraced these truths I never knew such joy and contentment in the Lord. My sis and I have argued over it, she sees predestination as a horrible robot-doctrine that makes her not want to serve God. How to explain the freedom and grace of it? Only the Holy Spirit can reveal, so I pray for her.
I appreciated this. It encourages me and reminds me of things I need reminding of today. God bless.
October 3rd, 2005 at 7:34 am
Excellent post, CEM. You expressed my understanding and beliefs, as well. Thinking deeply and objectively, without our preconceived, knee jerk reaction emotions about ‘freedom’ , as you pointed out, even an atheist would have to admit we are not ‘free’ to act against our nature. Only a sovereign God, delivering us from those natures, can make us truly free.
I also agreed with your difficulties with the assumptions and logic behind ‘limited atonement’ and have scratched my head over why this has been made such a big issue by some. I place the difficulties that limited atonement seeks to address in the same category as these other ‘mysteries’ you mentioned (i.e. the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ )
Recognizing the true sovereignty of our loving God has given me more peace than anything since I first came to know His saving grace and love. I can peacefully accept my depraved, fallen, weak, nature, knowing that only He can do anything about it—as I confess it continually to Him. And it has given me a deeper understanding of, and faith in, His wonderful promise to work all things together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.
October 3rd, 2005 at 7:49 am
A thought to share:
And when I did pray, it was an attempt to influence God to act and change His mind, not a prayer to remind myself of and rest in His soverign grace. I still wrestle with this final legacy of Arminian doctrine.
I agree that our prayers ought not be a futile attempt to change the sovereign Will of God. But he does call us to pray and ask Him to change things here on earth. Here is something I wrote on my thoughts about the parable of the unjust judge in Luke 18:1-8:
Here we have a parable that demonstrates an aspect of the mysterious dance between God’s predestination (will He not bring about justice for His elect..?) and His call to us to bring forth that justice through faithful, unceasing prayer. Our actions, our choices, our responses, our will are all a part of how He brings about that which He has willed and ordained here on earth.
Focus, faith and perserverance seem to be the keys, here. I am constantly tempted to become distracted from prayer, to lose heart or give up. Here, He tells us not to give up simply because we do not see immediate results–stay focused and faithful until His Will and ours is brought about on earth.
There are times when His preordained Will and our wills do not match–and His Will must prevail. But even in those cases, we must continue to pray without ceasing. Our earnest prayers will change something—even if the only thing changed is only our will becoming bent to His Will. He promises to always give us what we ask for..but sometimes in the dance between our wills and His, our prayers make the world and circumstances conform to what we want, through prayer. Other times, our prayers make our will conform to what He wants in the world and in the circumstances….Either way, as we pray “Not my will, but Thine” we end up with exactly what we ask for.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:33 pm
Figuring out distinctions between Calvinists, neo-Calvinists, Arminians, etc. has always been one of those things that I figured I’d tackle “someday.” Well…I think that, rather than “tackling,” I am easing into the process :-). I appreciate many things about this post, but I’d like to put a face to a dissenting view: I am not presently at a place that understands “predestination” to mean “allowing no choice.” (Guess that makes me Arminian?) My reasons are neither emotional (they’re not! Really! I mean it!), nor that I think man’s nature is basically good (Pelagianism?), nor that God is not sovereign. I also don’t believe that God’s being infinite, eternal, and unchangeable means that everything that happens in Creation is set, to the most minute occurrence, from the beginning. Foreknowledge does not equate with all of history being predetermined.
I believe that God originally made man and woman to be in fellowship with Him. Man and woman blew it, by choice, so that the original desire for God was desecrated. But God, in His infinite love and mercy, has made available the desire to find Him again, though the wickedness of the human heart obfuscates this so that no one seeks after God or can find Him apart from His leading – which is available to all. If Adam and Eve fell because of their sin nature, then God made them with that nature from the beginning. Would He have called that “good?”
There must be creativity in the relationship between God and man, otherwise, man could not “avail much” via prayer. What is the purpose of prayer if God has things already determined? Why would Paul exhort us to “run the good race” (I Cor. 9:24-27) if God had already decided every event? Why would God give the depraved over to their degrading passions (Romans 2) if man had no choice as to whether or not to honor God? Why would the people be told, in Joshua 24:15, to “choose this day whom you will serve?” Why would Jesus say, in John 7:17, “If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own?”
Sovereignty means having final authority; not necessarily that no one else has any influence.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:31 pm
Annie,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and conclusions on this.
I DO have the feeling that someday when we arrive in Heaven, we will learn that BOTH Calvinists and Arminians were wrong on SOME things they believe with all of their hearts.
October 4th, 2005 at 7:24 am
Wow, great comments! Lots to think about!
Debra - I absolutely agree with you about prayer. Thank you for articulating that and reminding me. Prayer is part of the paradox of our expereince where our day to day choices and God’s unfathomnable being collide, if not the main crucible of that paradox! I have wrestled with that over and over again with my sister’s situation, knowing that God calls me to pray earnestly and He wants to use my prayer as an occasion to answer, that my joy might be made full.
But then if in a day I fail to pray, or even if I do but maybe not “hard enough” and my sister seems to take a worse turn, I am tempted to feel that it is my fault for not praying better. That is why again and again I return to the doctrine of His faithful soverignty, care and grace. Without it, I would despair, for what is ever “hard enough” if the results depend on me and my will? I think my sister’s struggle has forced theology to become very intimate to me. It has definately put a bright spotlight on the gap between head knowledge and what I truly hold by living faith.
October 4th, 2005 at 8:41 am
Bonnie - I knew that when I saw you had commented that you would bring great discussion! As you ‘ease in’ to grappling with this difficult and always stubbornly persistant issue, here are a few questions that I had with the theories you suggested.
You said . I also don’t believe that God’s being infinite, eternal, and unchangeable means that everything that happens in Creation is set, to the most minute occurrence, from the beginning. Foreknowledge does not equate with all of history being predetermined.
This is a premise for your position, yet just an assertion. Can you give logical argument for why foreknowledge does not equate to every detail being set? As Williamson argues, “God is an infinite, eternal and unchangeable person. Therefore His plan or purpose must ever have been a part of his infinite, eternal and unchangeable existence.” Can you give a reason why this might not be so? How could some be set and not others?
I fear that such a position inevitably, logically leads to Open Thesism, which ismore philosophically consistant than a middle position, but definately insupportable biblically.
You bring up a great point about Adam and Eve, which I am going to save for a post - I am still mulling it over too!
You also said - “But God, in His infinite love and mercy, has made available the desire to find Him again, though the wickedness of the human heart obfuscates this so that no one seeks after God or can find Him apart from His leading – which is available to all.”
If you take total depravity seriously, that NO ONE seeks God and all our hearts are at enemnity with him (Romans 1-3), then to put foreward your position, you must say that “God making available the deisre to find Him” is essentially that He regenerates the whole world and every person - He changes their hearts to be able to see His truth, glory and salvation, and then after being regenerated, people have the choice to choose that salvation. But then the salvation has already happened! And who, seeing the glory and beauty of God, having their eyes opened to his truth, who could reject Him?
Would love to discuss more - You bring up in your third paragraph the very reason why I love the idea of paradox. In our experience, phenomenologically, God’s soverignty will never make TOTAL sense, because He is God, he is by ‘definition’ incomprehensible and mysterious. Now my 1 year old is drawing on the table, so I hope that was coherent and conversational!
October 4th, 2005 at 8:43 am
Holly - Blessed are the peacemakers! You also bring up the issue that not all doctrine has to be reduced to calvinism or arminianism. Luther certainly would have protested! I hope to post on this soon, after a bit more research. Take Wesley for example, many staunch calvinist would call him arminian, but in truth, he wasn’t and his position makes a great deal of sense to me in his historical context. May get to it sometime this month . . . .
October 4th, 2005 at 9:54 am
But then if in a day I fail to pray, or even if I do but maybe not “hard enough” and my sister seems to take a worse turn, I am tempted to feel that it is my fault for not praying better. That is why again and again I return to the doctrine of His faithful soverignty, care and grace. Without it, I would despair, for what is ever “hard enough” if the results depend on me and my will? I think my sister’s struggle has forced theology to become very intimate to me. It has definately put a bright spotlight on the gap between head knowledge and what I truly hold by living faith.
I agree entirely, Annie. Even our call to prayer comes from Him. His Will is always in control even when our wills are weak or distracted. It is not the strength of our will to pray but the strength of His Will that ultimately determines what happens. Yet, amazingly, He still makes us a part of it all. I love the quote from Pascal “God has instituted prayer so as to confer upon his creatures the dignity of being causes.”
I haven’t yet read about your sister–but I will be praying for her, and you, in whatever it is. I have a couple of people I love going through very serious trials and struggles right now. It is a real experience in perseverance for me, these days, learning how to ’stand in the gap’ with intercessory prayer for those I love.
October 4th, 2005 at 10:05 am
Debra - Great quote by Pascal! I had been thinking of reading the Penses again soon. Thanks for your encouragement. He also chooses to use each other to bless so that we might have the joy of fellowship!
October 4th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Yes, and it’s that encouragement and joy of fellowship that helps get us through the trials and tribulations. Coming across your blog is a bright spot at a time when I could use a pick-me-up. He sure does use others to bless us!
October 4th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
Hi Annie, I appreciate your questions, and, as always, the discussion :-). The issue at hand is, as you say, a persistent one, esp. because of the paradoxes. I will try to explain the way I understand things.
On foreknowledge: God’s having knowledge that something will happen does not mean that He caused it to happen. The distinction is between knowledge and causation. That God had his plan/purpose for redemption in place before the world was formed does not mean that He has planned man’s every choice, if His purpose was/is not to do so. My understanding is that He designed the plan for redemption, in His will, before the world began (outside of time). If He indeed created us with free will, i.e., the ability to choose (as I believe He has), then He allows us the freedom to either accept His redemption or reject it. It is a battle of wills.
I see in Williamson’s statement a non-sequitur; i.e., it does not follow from God’s being infinite, eternal, and unchangeable that His plan therefore includes making pawns of men (and women) in a cosmic game in which He has already set all the moves.
When I say that God makes available the desire to find Him, I am not saying that it’s up to Him whether or not someone takes up what He makes available. Making-available is not equivalent to regeneration. Regeneration cannot occur unless it is accepted; forgiveness cannot be imputed unless it’s received.
Regarding open theism, well, that’s another one to tackle :-). It seems to me that a large part of the problem in understanding foreknowledge, predestination, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. etc. is the fact that we are trying to understand infinite, eternal things within the context of Creation, i.e., time (or, rather, understand how God could operate in both realms at the same, uh, time
). I do not see God’s foreknowledge to be inconsistent with the fact that He allows us choice, i.e., allows for the possibilities of different “outcomes.” Within the context of time, He works with us, creatively, yet, outside of time, He knows what will result. That’s omniscience. He allows us to exercise our wills, yet, if He must, He will intervene and override our will; that’s omnipotence. (Those darn paradoxes!).
One more quick note: logic itself only goes so far; paradox more or less defies logic. True rationality, in my mind, puts logic in subordination to Truth (meaning, ultimately, spiritual truth, which can only be apprehended via the Spirit).
October 5th, 2005 at 8:00 am
Thoughts to share:
Bonnie, I agree with you that Truth trumps our logic or understanding, but true logic itself is just a means for understanding truth. A paradox is beyond our understanding and may appear contradictory but it doesn’t have to be contradictory. He defies ourlogic–but, ultimately, we shall see that He does not defy Logic itself.
If we assume an omniscient God with complete foreknowledge and assume Him to be the First Cause of all things, the Creator, He cannot help but have caused all things from the Beginning. If in that first act of creation, when time begins, He knows the location of every subatomic particle of matter and where it will go next , what it will do, what effect it will have–then everything from that point on is preordained.
.
But that doesn’t mean we then have no choice. From my perspective, within the framework of time, although I know my choices are all influenced by things beyond my control (i.e. my genetics, my upbringing, biochemistry, subconscious desires, experiences, the Holy spirit, etc…) I am still free from external compulsion to make whatever choices I want. My choices are free, but the nature that influences my desires and my will, is not. As an aware, sentient being, I cannot escape choice. Choice is the awareness that I can do one thing or another. If I decide not to make a choice, I have made a choice. But my choices stem from what I want or I will, other wise it isn’t a choice, it’s compulsion. But what I want (or will) stems from my nature and desires that have their roots in things beyond my control. I am grateful they are in the control of a Loving God and grateful that He has freed me from a sinful nature. Yes, sometimes we have conflicting wants and we choose His Will over our own—but even that choice stems from a desire to choose Him over ourselves–and where did that desire come from but from Him? He truly is the Alpha and Omega—but that doesn’t make us mere pawns. From my perspective within time, I use my will to choose and my choices do effect things. The fact that my choice has it’s origin in Eternity doesn’t change that. We are all free to choose—that is the nature of all mankind. But only Christians, freed from their sin nature, are truly free–free to choose rightly. In addition, Christians can become a conscious part of His preordained plans. By uniting our wills with His, through prayer, we, too, become causes, within the framework of time.
I know this doesn’t answer all the questions or solve all the puzzles. I don’t even know if I have expressed this in a way that is helpful. But I do pray it helps. I share it as food for thought….:-)
October 5th, 2005 at 8:02 am
I don’t have a ‘free’ will—I have a ‘freed’ will
October 5th, 2005 at 8:32 am
Bonnie - Thank you for your response! You have me thinking this morning, for sure!
Your explination of foreknowledge sounds great and very sensible, but again, how can God decree some things from the beginning and not all? Every event is so intimately entertwined, really how could he set aside some human choices as open and still have planned the end from the beginning? I believe you would answer paradox, something we inside time can’t understand.
Given your statement “it does not follow from God’s being infinite, eternal, and unchangeable that His plan therefore includes making pawns of men (and women) in a cosmic game in which He has already set all the moves.” - It seems that you would choose paradox over the implications of logic based on an emotional assesment. This statement is a strawman argument that takes a logical deduction and inserts a character judgement. Perhaps God has decreed all things, every detain, but not with the virtue of a cyborg-dictator, but with the love of a God who would decree His son to the cross, ordaining all things to create the best possible world and life for His creatures.
I rely every second on God sustaining my very breath and subatomic particles in order to be able to hug my children of pick whole wheat pasta instead of white. I rely on God sustaining the integrity and sanity of my mind in order to be able to reason through these arguments, or even remember who my husband is. With this humble, truthful perspective it is not so hard to see that He ordains and guides my choices, and my experience is that it is not as a cruel dictator and I do not feel like a pawn. I am a gracious recipient quite joyful that my life depends on His choices and not my fickle own.
I have most of my life concurred with the stance you describe, yet it is ultimately scripture that presses me further. How do you interpret all of chapter Romans 9? “So then God has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists HIs will?’ On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it?”
I agree that our logic only goes so far, and that is why we submit ourselves to scripture. If we argued only from reason, we could define God as we wished and argue from there. We could define God as the Greeks did, limited, fickle and pernicious and then deduce a theory of divine and human will from that stand point. Yet Scripture is clear on our total depravity and God’s absolute soverignty. As Christians, we must wrestle with scripture as well as logic. Open Theism takes philosophical presupositions as the ultimate premises and then does murder to scriptural interpretation.
Regarding your theory of making salvation available, what does that look like? I see in scripture that people are blind and lost and then they see. If “making-available” is not regeneration, what is it? You said it was not equivalent but did not offer a positive descriptor of it. Just curious
Girls are in need of their mother . . . !
Debra - Thanks for your comments as well. Good phenomenological description of our day to day choices.
October 5th, 2005 at 9:40 am
Good phenomenological description of our day to day choices.
Until you pointed that out, I hadn’t thought of it that way. I tend to present things, at least in the beginning of a discussion, without the use of scripture, both to unbelievers and to those who I believe know a lot of scripture. The former because they don’t recognize the authority of scripture and the latter because I know they are familiar with the scriptural arguments. But, eventually, it all comes back to scripture– the Word (written and otherwise) is the Alpha and Omega for understanding Truth, as well as of everything else. It was only after reading and meditating on the scriptures telling me both that I must choose but that God controls all things (including my ability to choose) that I was ready and able to tackle the reasoning and understanding from a phenomenological standpoint. (BTW, thanks for that word: ‘phenomenological’–I plan on looking into that some more! )
I, too, have to go for awhile. In addition to the regular routine, I’ve gotta get this family of 7 packed for a trip. (It’s like preparing for a major campaign!) We’re headed south to visit my sister and her family and see my twin nephews baptized in the Gulf of Mexico!
Looking forward to more fun and edifying exchanges when I get back. Have a blessed weekend.
October 5th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
Annie,
Ok, I admit to not reading every single word of all the comments, so forgive me if I mispeak. I’m looking at quotes like this :
It sounds like you are saying that all of our choices are determined by God from the beginning. That sounds kind of fatalistic to me. Again, maybe I misunderstand, but I thought that the Calvinist position was that we do have choice, but that we can only choose according to our nature. So that an unregenerate person can choose any multitude of things, but will never set their hearts towards God because their nature is in no way oriented towards Him - until such a time of His choosing.
I agree that nothing happens outside of God’s will - but that also includes His permissive will in which He allows certain things to happen which He is not the direct cause of.
Thanks for the thought-provoking post!
October 5th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
Hi, Brian,
I know you didn’t ask for my ‘two cents’. But I’m headed out of town and I couldn’t resist making a last little contribution to this very interesting discussion before I leave. I’m sure Annie will have much more to say on this. Debra
From God’s perspective in Eternity the Beginning, the End and the Middle are all one. Things are only predetermined from God’s perspective, not from mine. Within the framework time, many options are open to me from which to choose. It is not fatalism at all to realize that many factors beyond my knowledge and control have come together to make me choose what I choose–down to the smallest, most insignificant decision. My nature and experience, not just my sin nature, determine my choices. A choice made by a will independent of it’s nature and experience would be a random choice–not exactly what I would call ‘free’. If God was not the ultimate determiner of my choices, then other things would be. I cannot act independently of my nature and experience.
Now, you will probably ask if this doesn’t mean God is ultimately responsible for bad choices, sin—which we know He is not. I don’t have an answer for that accept to point out that the Bible is full of mystery with regards to this paradox. He created creatures who He knew would sin. He created the conditions in which He knew they would choose sin. Yet He is not the author of sin. Even those who talk of His ‘permissive’ will are stuck with the dilemma of explaining how God is not responsible for sin when He chooses to allow some evil to occur and prevents others. I agree there is a big difference between actively commiting sin and allowing it—but as far as who is ultimately in control of all that happens, it still boils down to God.
October 5th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
Brian - good point. You are correct, as far as I understand and have read in the Westminster Confession, that Calvin and the divines stopped short of total determinism. You description of feedom of the will concurs with what I have read in the WCF.
Sometimes my philosophy background gets mingled in with my theology!
Essentially we must draw a line of paradox somewhere. There seems to be, within Christianity, a spectrum from Open Theism on the, say, far left, and determinism on the far right. Logically pursuing human free will leads to the Openness and logically pursuing God’s soverignty leads to determinism. Most people seem to draw a line of mystery somewhere in between. To be reformed, truly, it seems you must at least draw the line at the place where salvation is concerned. God elects His people. He chooses them, their own will has nothing to do with Salvation.
As far as whether the elect have Guacamole for dinner tonight, a line of mystery is drawn and God’s soveringty, eternal purpose and permissive will are all big enough to deal with free human choices, according to the definition of free to follow nature, not free and able to do absolutely anything. Today, I will draw the line there too, but I have moved my line many times in my years of wrestling with this issue! I draw it here, because Scripture seems to draw the line here. There is human responsibility and choice in scripture, yet Romans 9 and many other passages make salvation pretty clearly dependant not on works or will but on God who shows mercy.
It seems Bonnie would draw the line further to the left, allowing human choice to determine who is saved.
All this brings up in my mind, as an aside, for which doctrines would I face the Guillotine? We Christians can get so argumentative amongst ourselves, but for which points would we die for? Allow our children to die for? I don’t think it is a purely theoretical question. Christians are persecuted and more have been martyred in this last century than any other. If I wouldn’t stake my life on a doctrine, then I better be pretty charitable, loving and gracious in how I discuss it with others! Just a reminder to myself. I can be pretty fiesty. I love a good debate. Thanks commenters for giving me one!
October 5th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Annie, I really like your latest comments that include:
We Christians can get so argumentative amongst ourselves, but for which points would we die for? If I wouldn’t stake my life on a doctrine, then I better be pretty charitable, loving and gracious in how I discuss it with others!
Truly, that is an excellent bottom line when discussing issues that are not clearly laid out in scripture.
I also appreciate your way of discribing at what point is the line drawn in our choice and God’s sovergnty. It’s very pictoral for me and helps me to see better those on each side of the discussion. I’m still hovering the middle.
It’s good food for thought.
October 5th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
Debra,
I do not see Logic as transcendent; I see it as a limited, human function. I do not believe that logic can explain (spiritual) paradoxes, though I did not mean to imply that paradoxes cannot be understood, in part, through a mirror darkly. I also believe that the nature of a spiritual paradox is that it appears contradictory while not truly being so. Paradoxes are apprehended via the Spirit’s illumination and perhaps explained by humans via logic, though they cannot be apprehended (or understood) via logic alone.
From my perspective within time, I use my will to choose and my choices do effect things.
This is not compatible with God having predetermined what every act of man will be.
Annie, I don’t have time for a thorough response but will offer the following for now (plenty long already!):
Your explination of foreknowledge sounds great and very sensible, but again, how can God decree some things from the beginning and not all? Every event is so intimately entertwined, really how could he set aside some human choices as open and still have planned the end from the beginning? I believe you would answer paradox, something we inside time can’t understand.
God can decree…and not all, because He’s God! If He gave man the ability to choose, then how could He at the same time decide what man’s every choice would be? That He intervenes and plans does not preclude man’s ability (God-given) to make choices himself.
Is not the burden of proof upon you for your beliefs as well as it is upon me for mine?
Given your statement “it does not follow from God’s being infinite, eternal, and unchangeable that His plan therefore includes making pawns of men (and women) in a cosmic game in which He has already set all the moves.” - It seems that you would choose paradox over the implications of logic based on an emotional assesment.
I’m not sure why paradox is being set against logic, or the implications thereof; as I stated before, I believe logic itself, i.e., human cogitation, to have limits and fallibility, as humans themselves are limited and fallible. We cannot un-paradox paradox merely by thinking about it. I would even question whether we need to unpack paradox completely; this would seem to me to try to build a tower of logic a little too high. As C. S. Lewis said, all reality is iconoclastic; we ought not put too much stock in our own understanding.
Perhaps God has decreed all things, every detain, but not with the virtue of a cyborg-dictator, but with the love of a God who would decree His son to the cross, ordaining all things to create the best possible world and life for His creatures.
Annie, the logical implications of this are that God’s causing man to be totally depraved makes no sense, especially if His purpose was to create the best possible world and life for His creatures. It would be more in keeping with your view of predestination to say that God has created everything for His good pleasure only, not for His creatures’ best life.
This statement is a strawman argument that takes a logical deduction and inserts a character judgement.
How is this statement a strawman argument? What about it is straw? And what is the character judgment? What is the emotional assessment?
…it is not so hard to see that He ordains and guides my choices, and my experience is that it is not as a cruel dictator and I do not feel like a pawn. I am a gracious recipient quite joyful that my life depends on His choices and not my fickle own.
Annie, if He has predetermined which choices you will make, then they are not truly your choices, and that indeed makes you a pawn. This is different from saying that He ordains certain choices to have certain effects, that He allows the choices themselves, that He guides loving choices, and that He sustains Creation. The guidance of which you speak is part of what I mean by “making available.” A person may accept or reject this guidance, however.
In Romans 2:19 it is written, “that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.” It is written other places that He provides even for the wicked, and that this alone is evidence of His righteousness. Romans 2:20 “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood though what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
As Christians, we must wrestle with scripture as well as logic. Open Theism takes philosophical presupositions as the ultimate premises and then does murder to scriptural interpretation.
I would say that any position on predestination, etc. is philosophical in nature, and I would think it exceedingly difficult for anyone not to bring presupposition of some sort to Scriptural interpretation. Another difficulty is that different portions of Scripture appear to say contradictory things, and how does one reconcile these…paradoxes?
October 6th, 2005 at 8:15 am
Hi, Bonnie! I’m finally headed out the door but just wanted to clear up something–I was a little too subtle, vague, obtuse??
when I said this about logic:
true logic itself is just a means for understanding truth…..He defies ourlogic–but, ultimately, we shall see that He does not defy Logic itself.
By defining logic as the means for understanding truth and capitalizing the word Logic, in my head, I was trying to equate Logic with Him. He is the Ultimate Logic–but His ways are not our ways. But I didn’t convey this thought very well.
And on what I said about being able to choose:
) But the key was “from my perspective in time”. I operate within a framework of time. All of the future is ahead of me. I have options to consider and choices to make. I don’t often, consciously, think about the fact that the Father already has planned my days, sees and knows the Path I will take–but when I do think about it, it gives me peace.
“From my perspective within time, I use my will to choose and my choices do effect things.”
You commented that this is not compatible with God having predetermined what every act of man will be. I know it appears to be contradictory (there’s that paradox thing again!
In trying to understand and discuss paradoxes, I think we are all just blind men trying to describe to one another the little bit of the mystery that we perceive as we grope around. I’ve really enjoyed exploring this with you all!
Blessings & Peace,
Debra
October 6th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
As a Lutheran, I am also a predestinarian. We have different ways of speaking about the subject, however. When discussing the elect, we speak like Calvinists. When discussing everyone else, we don’t. I think the reason is, people tend to imagine that God damned the reprobate “just because.” The Lutheran Confessions warn against conceiving of election as a military muster where God looks at the human race and says, “This one shall be saved. This one shall be damned.” Now the part we disagree with here is not so much the choice, as much as the lack of context for the decision. Those who are saved are saved by the good pleasure of God. But those who are lost seem to be lost for the sake of the salvation of the elect. Pharaoh is a good example. He is not raised up and humbled just for his own sake, but so that God’s name would be glorified. But the glorification of his name seemed to have salvific effects. How many are saved because we have an Exodus account? God surely is sovereign over all of this. But I want to make sure when we speak of these things that salvation is paramount in the discussion.
October 6th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
As a non-Calvinist who believes in predestination in some form and against TULIP for Biblical reasons other than emotional and who has been in and witnessed too many debates on the subject I have to say I am incredibly impressed by the spirit of this discussion so far. Amazing. Great example.
October 6th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
Rick - Thank you for the comment articulating the Lutheran side of this doctrine. I am learning a great deal about Lutherans recently, largely thanks to Josh at BHT who sparked my interest. I am very drawn to what I have learned so far.
As I was reading the WCF, I winced a bit at the language of double-predestination, not that I technically see it as really wrong, but becasue as you say, all of God’s decree has been made for His glory and for the sake of the elect. I also think it more truthful to speak in terms of first remembering that ALL were lost, and then miraculously, even some are saved.
Your point reminds me of Alvin Plantiga’s idea of Middle Knowledge, mainly the part where he posutlates the idea of “best possible worlds”. It makes it “easier” to affirm God’s utter goodness and loving kindness when he theorizes that God created the world and history as such so that the greatest glory can be wrought from the least amount of evil as possible. I consider this an interesting philosophical idea, but not one that can really be worked out with any kind of certainty.
Rey - Thank you very much for the encouragement. I really appreciate it. I think one reason women tend to shy away from theology debates and heavy discussion is because of the difficulty in keeping the tone charitable while still being vigorous.
October 6th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
Hi Debra, I appreciate the clarification. These things aren’t so easy to discuss, are they? Rather large and complex for these little comment boxes :-). I have to admit, though, this discussion has got me curious about a lot of things.
I wonder if you will humor me one more question :-): when you say that you find comfort in the fact that God has already decided your choices, is your comfort derived from the fact that you therefore can’t “seriously mess up?” And, (OK, 2 more questions!) if God is making your choices for you, how can you therefore be held accountable for them?
I find comfort in the fact that, regardless of what bone-headed or hurtful things I may do or say, God forgives me 70 x 7 and then some; in fact, He wipes out the record of these things as long as my heart is, essentially, owned by Him. I am still accountable for my actions, however, and they will still have consequences. I also believe that, were I to seriously turn away from God, I could allow myself to be led away to the point that God might turn me over; i.e., I could lose my salvation. (Another can of worms, eh? LOL!) This loss, of course, would be what I deserve. I am humbled by the fact that, though I don’t deserve salvation, I may have it by accepting His most gracious and merciful offer.
Thanks, all, for the discussion, and thanks, Annie, for getting it started!
October 7th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
Thanks, Annie.
The Lutheran understanding has often been called “single predestination.” And I’m willing to wear that label. But I don’t know that I reject all forms of double predestination as wrong. For me this is in part a matter of terminology.
The Lutheran confessions speak of God’s foreknowledge covering everything, while Election covers his children. God is said to see and know evil beforehand, and to set a limit and measure to the evil. It is also stated that it is not God’s good pleasure that the evil happen. But God is not a helpless bystander here since “the Lord God governs everything in such a way that it must redound to the glory of his divine name and the salvation of his elect, and thereby the ungodly are confounded.” (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article XI, paragraph 6)
It also states that election is a cause of salvation for the elect, so this is not God foreseeing that the elect would choose Christ with their free will as Arminianism teaches.
Our confessions may allow more leeway for those who wish to view God’s predestination as more narrow or passive toward the non-elect. But they also allow a pretty robust predestinarianism. What is not allowed are ways of speaking of double predestination that would drive people to despair, or make them think they were created just for the sake of damnation. (Even if there are non-elect, it would be better to say that they were created for someone else’s salvation.) This is part of the point of the “good pleasure” language. It doesn’t mean that God is displeased with the overall picture, but that there are parts of the overall picture that would not be chosen for their own sake, other things aside. I don’t think the Reformed confessions require people to believe the opposite, but they don’t stop Reformed teachers from teaching the opposite (i.e. that God seems not to just like the picture as a whole, but each piece for its own sake, including the damnation of the reprobate), or from giving that impression. Which is one reason I like the Lutheran confessions. Though to be honest, I choose them primarily because I accept their position on the Lord’s Supper, and I can sign the rest without feeling like it is distorted.
October 7th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
These things aren’t so easy to discuss, are they? Rather large and complex for these little comment boxes
Rather large and complex for my little brain, too!
is your comfort derived from the fact that you therefore can’t “seriously mess up?
Well, from my perspective, I can certainly seriously mess up. My peace comes from the fact that God can’t mess up. In knowing all about the choices I will make, good and bad, I have the peace that comes from knowing that He works ‘all things together for good for those that love the Lord and are called according to His purpose.’ All things includes even my mess ups.
if God is making your choices for you, how can you therefore be held accountable for them?
I don’t believe God makes my choices for me. I believe He has created me and all the conditions in which my choices will be made and thus knows how I will choose. He made and knows the chooser. But I make the choices. But your question is still valid. If He has made me a certain way, knowing exactly that I will choose a certain way in every situation and is in control of everything, how can He hold me accountable for my choices? This is exactly the question that Paul addresses in Romans 9:19-20 “One of you will say to me:
“Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”"
My understanding of this is that we really aren’t in a position to understand the answer to a question like this. This is basically the same answer Job received. How can a pot understand the reasons of the potter? It does not even have the ability to ask the question much less comprehend the answer.
All I know is that regardless of why we choose the way we choose, we are responsible for those choices. Regardless of why we jump or fall off the cliff, we are just as dead when we hit the bottom. Without Christ, no matter what our choices, we are doomed. With Christ, our choices invariably will be used by God to work together for good. We are in the hands of a sovereign and loving God. That’s really all I can know and understand about the matter.
October 7th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
Bonnie - Wow, losing salvation! That is another can of worms! I cannot see how one can be truly regenerated and saved and then somehow later *not*. The believer is ‘born again’, how can he be unborn? Don’t feel compelled to answer, it is an entire other topic!
RIck - Thank you VERY much for your summary of the Lutheran confessions. I am really interested in learning more, although it humors me that the one article on which I don’t know that I can agree is the Lord’s Supper! Specifically the tightly closed communion, but that is a different topic!
You (or the Lutheran confession) make a very good point - “What is not allowed are ways of speaking of double predestination that would drive people to despair, or make them think they were created just for the sake of damnation. (Even if there are non-elect, it would be better to say that they were created for someone else’s salvation.”.
I would definately draw a line of mystery by this point. The scriptures do seem clear that God has no pleasue in wickedness nor punishment. That again reminds me of Plantiga - postulating that the amount of evil allowed is only that necessary for maximum glory in the salvation of the Bride.
Debra - Ahhhh! You reveal where you will draw that line of paradox! Thank you for your great discussion!
October 8th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Congratulations on your ability to run a civil discussion on a topic like this!