The following is an article I read recently regarding God's sovereignty. While I agree with what's written, I think the author chooses to not acknowledge some key scriptures that could support an alternate view. I'll continue with my thoughts after the article.
I think the scripture also teaches, in conjunction with what this article says, that we have a free will. I'm thinking of scriptures such as:
1 Corinthians 3:13 - Every
man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every
man's work of what sort it is. (emphasis added)
Ephesians 4:19 - Who being past feeling have
given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. (emphasis added)
Philippians 2:12 - Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence,
work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.(emphasis added)
1 Thessalonians 1:3 - Remembering without ceasing
your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; (emphasis added)
Now, I'm sure a lot could be discussed about the specifics of "our work" vs "God's work", but the point is, I'm fairly convinced that they both exist. I'm also fairly convinced that they both exist simultaneously for the same works.
Do I understand it logically or rationally? No.
Do I believe that God can make to counter logical things true simultaneously? Yes.
So I have a free will and God is completely sovereign over EVERY action in my life at the exact same time.
I'm glad I serve a God who's that big. I'm glad that my Creator God is so magnificent that I'll never be able to understand. I'm thankful that I can rest easy in the arms of that God.
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
26 comments:
basically i look at it like this...God can do absolutely whatever he wants and i will always love him because nothing changes the fact that he saved us. also, no matter what He does, nothing will change as far as what is required of us, what is asked of us, how we should behave as christians, how we should share the gospel with all unsaved, etc. if God came back and said: no, you've got it all wrong, i did it exactly how john calvin said it, or if He came back and said i did it exactly like jacob arminius said- no matter what my response is the same. it will be "okay, i still love you and i will still obey you." and i wouldn't do anything different. i doubt either one had it right enough for God to say that but you get the point.
we never have the excuse "i don't want to worship a god like that". we can never have a heart that tells us that we'd only obey if God did it this way that i like. we know enough about him to never be able to say that, even if we don't fully understand this aspect of his plan/nature.
Traever: Agreed. We never have the excuse "I don't want to worship a God like that".
I think the benefits in thinking about this topic come when we sin as Christians. How will we react to that sin?
On the Calvinistic side we have the danger of saying "oh well, God planned for me to sin, so why feel bad". Scripture obviously doesn't back that line of thinking up.
On the Arminius side we can easily become discouraged thinking, "I will never be able to live the life God requires, so why try." The Scripture obviously doesn't back up that line of thinking either.
Somehow we need to come to grips in our minds that we do sin as Christians, and that sin requires a repent heart, but at the same time God is still completely sovereign over all, and He has the power to keep us from our sin.
Luke,
One of the immediate difficulties we run into in this discussion is the fluidity of the English language. There are tons of ways in which people use the term "free".
All the verses you quote deal with ownership of our acts of will, works, etc. None of them, however, address the stick issue of how free the people doing them were.
Interestingly enough, and a possible exception to what I Said above, Philippians 2:12 is followed by a verse (v13) which explains God's role in the matter.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the term "free will" if "free" is Biblically defined. However, that is often not the case in popular usage.
The classical Reformed (or, if you will, 'Calvinist') explanation does not deny what the verses you quoted affirm. They deny the hidden assumption that many people make about the autonomous nature of the actions mentioned in those verses.
yeppers. it's no a discussion we need to be afraid of or shy away from.
usually when i get confused and don't know the answers to questions like this i just ask myself because i know everything.
Mark: Yeah, I can see what you're saying. So you're saying when the scriptures I quoted aren't necessarily referring to a man's autonomous choices?
How do you explain a Christians sin then? God obviously doesn't "make" them sin right?
Traever: You're so smart. I wish I was as smart as you.
"Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also."
-GK Chesterton "Orthodoxy"
"How do you explain a Christians sin then? God obviously doesn't 'make' them sin right?"
Correct. God is not the author of sin. But by the same token when a Christian sins, he is not exiting the world of God's sovereign control and providence. I believe you have acknowledged this.
God does decrees all things that come to pass. Here is mystery. Here is Compatibilism. Without understanding that God decrees thing which are sinful without being morally culpable for them, we cease to be able to understand much of the Bible. God brought Assyria to attack Israel and then condemned them and all His actions remained pure. Joseph's brothers meant a thing for evil and God meant it for good. God ordained a sinful action for good. Judas sinfully betrayed Christ, God decreed this sin to accomplish the ultimate good.
God decreeing something evil happening does not negate the persons responsibility who has committed such evil. They have done so because it is what they wanted. In this sense, we both agree that these two things (God's sovereignty and man's culpability for his choices) coexist.
Its probably more on nomenclature and precise specifics that we may disagree.
There are two reservations which I have to the "free" in "free will" as it is traditionally used to describe fallen humans:
1. Man's will is not free from the providence of God.
2. Man's will is not free from the constraints of his own nature (ie. only as free as slave is)
Mark: I can understand your reservations to the "free" in "free will". I agree with both of those reservations.
In fact, I don't see anything in your last comment that I do not agree with.
cul·pa·ble –adjective
deserving blame...; blameworthy
I think an important note to stress in the teaching of this principal is that regardless of God's sovereignty man is fully culpable...deserving blame...blameworthy...guilty. We should not, and cannot, finger God's sovereignty in the hopes of redefining blame for our sinful state.
Our God is an awesome God!
Mark,
Though I also am uncomfortable with the modernist assumptions that define freedom, I'm possibly more uncomfortable with the idea that "God decrees things which are sinful". Undoubtedly, there are situations where God somehow acts through or uses evil, but that seems far from decreeing it. Are there not other situations that transgress the Lord's will?
Now I should say that I also disapprove of "why" questions (like "why did God cause X or Y or Z") because they seem to assume that we should be able to and it's right that we should know God's reasons. That seems silly. They make for good discussions, but as questions they assume far too much. As such, I don't think the issue is whether God culpable or in moral disrepute. No, I think the issue is whether not there is such a thing as human will that differs from God's will.
But my impression is that the Reformed tradition is uncommonly good at thinking in terms of God's sovereignty and eliminating the discussion (and thusly the mystery) about humans choosing sin. They're great at talking about what God does, but little else. The distant edge of that tradition would eliminate any mention of choice or will of man, other than to say that it's one more link in that heavy and sometimes oppressive chain of causation (I've know a few...one of them was a small group of people up in Fort Wayne who listened rather uncritically, and often unthinkingly, to Pastor John Piper).
It's right to ask why I pick more on the tradition belonging to Calvin, Luther, and all the rest. The problem that I have is that it's a line of thought that you find mostly in churches (though a few materialists will still pop up in universities here and there). On the other hand, if I'm remembering correctly, neither Herr Arminius nor most of the Christian denominations have said that God doesn't have a plan, or that he will take care of us (I say "most", because there are probably a couple of looney ones, eg Unitarians, who point to eliminating the meaning of the word "God" altogether), or really anything that violates God's sovereignty.
A ruder way to say it might be this: Men with TULIP on the mind may well know God, but they certainly don't know much about men.
I should also point out that most of what I have learned about theology (and much of what I've learned about Christianity) has emanated from good thinkers in the Reformed camp. None of them, however, are determinists by any means, some would'nt even qualify for the term "Reformed" in some of the stricter sects, and many of them are "moderates" because they don't start with a term (ie start with "God's sovereignty" and derive the rest of theology from these concepts) but they start with the text. This makes their theology more confused at times, but very true in confusing times.
It could be helpful if you'd talk a little bit more about what you mean by "free" in the reservations you set forth.
Nick: It's interesting that you took issue with the word "decree" from Mark's comment. When I was writing my comment I almost qualified my statement of "...I don't see anything in your last comment that I do not agree with." by saying, except for some word choices which may be questionable, but then I couldn't get far enough along that train of thought to explain why it was questionable. :-)
God "decreeing" evil was one of those word choices I was uncomfortable with.
So much of this argument may come down to semantics and definitions.
Yes, vocabulary and word use is vital to this discussion (as if it weren't complicated enough already). It's also a tough terrain because it's easy to paint the opposite group as a bunch of idiots (when everyone knows that you can just ask Traever).
The closest thing I can make out to God decreeing evil would be something like Acts 4:27-28 (that whole paragraph sounds very Reformed) where Herod and Pontius Pilate did "whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done".
Nick: The coolest thing is that I live 5 blocks from Traever. Any time I have a question. I can just go ask him. It's so cool.
However, I still like to do blog posts like this to see what mere mortals think about topics.
it a heavy burden to bear
hmmm...you'll have to get a copy of the elders' new treatise on God's sovereignty and see what they think...
As far as.... "God decrees things which are sinful"
I think it is kind of hard to understand a sovereign Holy God decreeing something sinful.
Would not the scriptural reference of Romans 9:21-23 come into play?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
God being the potter, who can make vessels (people) of honor or dishonor?
With that thought in mind, then the sin/sinful deeds are on the vessel of dishonor, which is what they were created for.
Just a thought
Timothy
Timothy,
A great passage for this discussion. If I understand that passage correctly, he's talking about how salvation is not just to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. So perhaps God endured Israel, who seemed under his wrath (ie Exile), so that the riches of his glory might be made known.
I do wonder if the honor/dishonor distinction implies the presence of sin.
Let me give an analogy to make sure I understood your last statement. Let's say that sin is some chemical cloud that kills plants. Are you saying, then, that God created certain plants in such a way that they would absorb that chemical and other plants in such a way that they wouldn't?
Matt: I'm getting a draft copy of that from Ron. I had him read this post, and I talked to him a little about it on Wed. night. He said he'd get me a copy of that paper. I'm looking forward to reading it.
Luke,
Could forward that on to me? What kind of approach are they taking?
Nick: I'm not sure how much Ron will want this copy passed around. He stressed that it was a draft, and he didn't want it to proliferate since the final copy will be coming out later. I'll see what he says though. Lynn Stiglietz (sp?) is one of the brothers on the Doctrinal Committee who helped draft it. Maybe you could talk to him about seeing the draft if Ron would rather I not pass it around.
I don't know what approach they're taking. I haven't seen the paper yet, and I didn't ask Ron too many questions. Ron seemed to feel that I'd be encouraged by it though.
I'll let you know more after I've read the draft.
Thanks, Luke. I'll go ahead and shoot Lynn an email.
Yes!
That's my answer-Who's making this complicated? I believe my part is to obey God and His part is to finish the work He has begun in me. I look at it as like being in a ship-the ship is headed for the destination while the passengers aboard have choices they can make. Are they going to change the course of the ship? Of course not. How enjoyable the journey is depends on the things they choose to do. If they want to stay in their cabins the whole time, that's their call, but if they want to have an enjoyable time they will have to get out and do some things. So if they want to stay in their cabins and not come out, does anyone besides them have a say in this? Yes, an emergency evacuation of the ship or something like that would get them out in a hurry. All this to say the same about God. He will let us make choices but none of them will override His purposes. If He has a specific task for us and something He wants to get across in our lives He will make sure it happens.
I believe God could have very easily answered this topic in a simple sentence or statement. After all, I doubt it's new. Can't you see Paul discussing it with the early church? So why didn't God? After all, He knew we would be discussing and wondering how it all works.
My opinion is that it challenges us to examine all the scriptures. When we come to the realization that while we don't understand it all but yet have a God who does, and uses both the bad and good choices we make to achieve His purposes, it is humbling and comforting.
So the short end of it is that I agree with your closing paragraphs, Luke.
One thing I have found helpful in regards to this topic is to read an account in the Bible and answer these questions:
-What was the problem of the individual (What was did they want)?
-What was their responsibility?
-What was God's?
-What was the outcome?
I don't like to reduce topics to make them seem like they are small and can be answered in a sentence. Yet at the same time we need to be sure we remember the purpose of God's word and our duty in life.
Thanks for that comment Josh. I like your study questions. Good food for thought.
I have thought about the fact that God could've completely laid out this topic, and many others, in a supremely clear, concise, simple paragraph, but chose not too. I too believe it is to get us to "search out" the heart of God.
*grin* BUT then again, if we have no free will God wouldn't use things like that to "get us to do something". He would just choose whether we did it or not. Or maybe that's an overly simplistic way of looking at it.
I love serving a God who's this much bigger than me!!
Nick said: "I think the issue is whether not there is such a thing as human will that differs from God's will". I think we all agree with that there is such a thing as a human will differing from God's will. So the question is not that, but how free the human will is. The will exists, no question about that (we see this quite pronouncedly in young children and stubborn older ones).
I have the same reservations most people do about God decreeing humans acts that are evil. But it is unavoidable. For example: Did God decree the crucifixion, or did He not? You'd either need to doubt that God decreed the crucifixion, or deny that the act was sinful to get around that, in my estimation.
Besides the obvious case of Christ's crucifixion and the reference to Acts 4:27-28, I've pointed out other areas where God decreed sinful human actions. It comes up in regard to the Assyrians efforts against Israel and with Joseph and his brothers.
To clarify my position, I'll refer to an old confession, which although using complicated language, rather accurately describes the picture we get from the scriptures. I think it also accounts for both human will and God's decree.
"God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree."
Also.. A few questions/comments:
I'd say Romans 9 is more useful in a discussion as to whether God gives all equal opportunity :)
Is having a hard heart sinful?
And referring back to what Nick said about Acts 4:27-28, what is the difference between God's counseling determining a sinful thing and Him decreeing it? If there is no difference, how can you avoid saying God decreed it?
Power against Christ is given from above in delivering Christ to Pilate (John 19:11).
And this isn't even getting into scriptures which at least could be construed to go BEYOND what I'm saying here.. ie Jude 4, etc.
I'm just as weary of determinism as any of you are.. And I don't think I'm a determinist. But, I'm trying to reflect what the scriptures say here..
I just read through the elders treatise on God's Sovereignty and they made some good points. It was a very encouraging paper. I'm gonna hash it over in my mind tonight and hopefully I'll find time tomorrow to write some thoughts on it.
Post a Comment