;)
God’s Perfect Will
Posted by Andrew Wencl in Bible & Theology
*All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version
Two Wills
Some people like to refer to two wills in God—perfect and permissive. For instance, we know that God is “not wishing (‘willing’ in other translations) that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance (2 Peter 3:9).” We know that not everyone does reach repentance, and therefore some perish. Does this mean that God’s will is thwarted? In one sense, perhaps, but not really. It says in Daniel 4:35, “…he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand…” In Job 42:2, speaking to God, Job says, “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.”
In order to reconcile the apparent contradiction between God accomplishing all that He wills and something that God wills not taking place, some have proposed what is called God’s “perfect will” and God’s “permissive will.” God’s perfect will is the action or state of being that would most conform to the commands and character of God so as to bring Him pleasure. We attempt to describe our own perfect will when we say things like, “In a perfect world…” or “If I had my way…” or “Wouldn’t it be great if…” Similarly, we could impose the first phrase into a passage from 1 Peter 2:15 to show God’s perfect will: “[In a perfect world], by doing good, you [would] put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.” Nothing indicates that this is how things will necessarily turn out, and many times they don’t in Christian contexts. That lack of perfect conformity to the will of God takes us to the permissive will of God.
The permissive will of God is the action or state of being that actually occurs, whether in conformity to the commands and character of God or not. References to the permissive will of God usually deal with the issues of sin, sickness, wars, and natural disasters—things for which God doesn’t usually offer a mark of approval. Other terms are usually used to refer to the specific things that God brings about or that actually conform to His commands and character, but since they are included in the way history plays out, I include them in the permissive will of God. Why? Because we know that history is not up to par with God’s perfect will, even with God’s perfect will playing out alongside his permissive will. For instance, if a soldier accepts Christ while on a tour of duty in Afghanistan, we could say that was according to God’s perfect will (since God desires that all would be saved), but since war is part of God’s permissive will, ultimately a conversion during armed conflict would have come about according to the permissive will of God. That is an interesting observation and forms part of the basis for my dislike of the terms “permissive will” and “perfect will” in this context.
A “Hands Off” God
The terms “perfect will” and “permissive will” are inadequate for a thorough treatment of the issue of God’s will for the following reasons:
1) With the exception of the time prior to the Fall in Genesis 3, everything we could link to God’s perfect will is actually His permissive will because it was precipitated by a permissive will event in the past (like the war conversion example).
2) Following the first point, having a perfect will and a permissive will implies that God is not getting His way in the universe. It suggests that He is settling for second best, since “permissive” is necessarily not as good as “perfect.”
3) If God is settling for second best, we seriously have to question God’s ability to carry out His purposes or to question His eternal satisfaction with second best. This is a dangerous path to follow and has led some to deny of many of the attributes of God including His omniscience, omnipotence, and omnisapience (being all-wise).
4) Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it presents us with a “hands off” God that is not as active (or perhaps as effective) as the verses in the Bible (such as in Job and Daniel) would have us to believe.
This “hands off” God presented in the perfect/permissive will is not the God of the Bible. There are many passages that present both an active and effective God. Perhaps one of the most thorough treatises on God’s activity and efficiency is in Job 38. I used to like to think that God set up the seasons and the laws that govern the universe to act in His stead, but this passage gives Him credit not only for creating the “natural laws,” but also for actively holding the stars together and for actively sending each bolt of lightening. The Bible does not paint for us a picture of an inactive God. It is not so great a thing to ask God to make the sun stand still when you know it is He who actively holds it in place. Perhaps Ephesians 1:11 sums up God’s activity and efficiency best by saying God “…works all things according to the counsel of his will” (emphasis mine).
An inactive or ineffective God is not a God who can be blamed, which is why the perfect/permissive will of God remains a popular view for many Christians today. In effect, the argument is that God has tied His hands on the issue by giving us freedom, and He has decided to let arbitrary natural laws determine the consequences of our free choices apart from His direct activity. But if that is the case, then God must have known what the result would be from the beginning. This position, while trying to protect God from blame, offers no real defense and only distracts from the question of why certain things happen to certain people. If God knew about it in advance, he certainly could have prevented it from happening.
The Active God
An active and effective God who controls and ordains everything, including who suffers from sickness, who dies in war, and the devastation of natural disasters, must also control whether or not sin will happen, who will do it, and what the consequences will be. Even someone with an Arminian base to his theology must admit that if God is omniscient and all-powerful, He could have chosen to act in such a way as to prevent any illness, war, or disaster without infringing on our “free will.” He therefore must have approved of it in some sense or it never would have happened.
Some object to this train of thought, saying that God never approves of sin nor enjoys suffering, but we are then pulled back into the issue of God settling for less than optimal or God lacking the ability to “work all things according to his will.” If God truly is working all things according to His will, then in some sense it must be God’s will that children get sick, Christians suffer, and tsunamis and earthquakes (think Haiti) strike. Romans 8:28 says, “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” This verse means nothing to us if we don’t believe it was part of God’s plan for all of our life’s circumstances to turn out the way they did. If we prefer to read this verse as a comfort when we’re suffering, why is it not a comfort to us when we’re not?
Even though we don’t necessarily understand how God can ordain evil things for good, we have to trust that He does. An all-powerful and all-knowing God must have decided it was “best” or else He is denying Himself the pleasure and glory He deserves.
Allow me to explain this point. Perhaps the best example of this is the story of Joseph in Genesis. Here we see that Joseph’s brothers sold Him into slavery. While in slavery, he rose to a position of prominence and then was imprisoned for something he didn’t do. After he rose to a position of prominence by warning the Pharaoh of pending disaster, he saved his entire family from famine and faced his brothers once again, as their superior. Some preachers have said that God turned a bad situation around for good. Here is what the scripture says, “And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are yet five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. So it was not you who sent me here, but God. He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt (Genesis 45:5-9, emphasis mine).”
The point here is not that God made the best of a lousy situation. The point is that God’s purposes are greater than the purposes of sinful and wicked created beings. In a limited sense, God is like an author, telling a story, using evil characters and good characters to ultimately bring Himself glory, only the difference is that God interacts with His creation. Must the Author carry vile intentions for His characters to carry vile intentions? Must the Author be wholly evil for His characters to be wholly evil? There is no contradiction between saying that God is good and that he willed both good and evil to occur in His story. This is partly because God exists on a different plane than His “characters,” but also because sickness, suffering, and disaster can show both God’s wrath and judgment as a holy God and God’s mercy and grace in bringing us through these trials. Ultimately this brings glory to God. And God is the one who orchestrated it. The prophet Jeremiah summed it up in Lamentations 3:37-38: “Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?”
The Good God and His Perfect Will
But how can God be justified for His sovereign inclusion of these evils in His plan? Paul answers a similar question in Romans 9. He says, “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory? (Romans 9:19-23).”
I used to think that Paul’s response was avoiding the question. After careful prayer and seeking, I discovered that Paul really does have an answer. God is God. Who are we to question His motives or His actions? If God is the ultimate authority in the universe, and He says that “all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose,” who are we to doubt Him? I don’t think we’re called to fully understand how God has ordained everything that happens and we are responsible for our actions. But let’s not throw up half a defense and claim that God has a perfect will and a permissive will. He does have a perfect will, and He’s working all things according to its council.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Andrew,
In A.W. Tozer’s book, “Knowledge of the Holy” he defines the attribute of God’s Wisdom, or tries to. The portion that stands out to me is that Wisdom “sees the end from the beginning”. From that, God has set predestined goals and works toward them with flawless precision. Based upon what we believe about God, He must be able to achieve all of this without sin. Within both His perfect and permissive wills there is not a fingerprint or dust particle that would minutely distort His Holiness. With our faulty perception of His workings we must label and categorize all of His actions and that may be what creates some misunderstandings of His work. For instance, most can believe everything about God until it gets into the will of man. From there we have Armenians and Calvinist and many shades in-between. We see only slices of eternity and God dwells there. From that it is a little easier for me to trust His doings.
A great subject and well written.
Bruce
Andrew,
Thank you very much for posting this article. For years I’ve been skeptical of the perfect/permissive distinction and have posed more than a few thorny questions regarding it to both Arminians and Calvinists. You do a yeoman’s job pointing out the flaws in using a distinction that is nowhere found in scripture. I see no scriptures anywhere ever excusing God for the evil that befalls man. Ever. In fact I see the Bible telling me that God is capable of bringing joy as well as calamity. As a sovereign God, he has the right to dispose of us, His creatures, as He sees fit, a notion that does not sit well in our modern age.
I like His reply to Job who was demanding an answer to the “Why me, Lord? What have I done to deserve this?” questions and asked him who he thought he was that he could question God.
The story of Joseph is a powerful story of God’s ability to redeem even the worst of situations. Had Joseph’s brothers been godly, kind and loving to him, no doubt thing would have turned out just as well for the family, but under different circumstances for Joseph. Joseph recognized that God could take even the most evil of intentions and transform them to good.
And that brings us to the most evil act mankind ever perpetrated and that was the wicked, vile, slaying of the One who created us. But rather than being defeated or discouraged, God used the dark circumstance of sin to triumph magnificently over it.
Excellent post.
rick
Andrew: I don’t know if the first part of my sentence perpetuates the distinction but I often tell my classes this: God does not directly cause all things that happen, but that He is responsible for all things that happen.
One clarification: What you seem to be saying is that there really aren’t any laws of nature. I suspect I’m misreading?
I would recommend a study of Chaos Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory)that helps us see how systems can be deterministic without being predictable. This was sort of eye opening to me when I first started looking at it as it showed how God can set the initial systems in such a way that they turn out exactly as he planned, no matter what choices we make along the way.
Think of it this way – Had Joseph’s brothers NOT sold him into slavery, would the family have survived the famine? Some would say no because he never made it to Egypt. However, what they don’t realize is that by making that alternate decision, it may have set in motion another set of events that would have landed Joseph in Egypt at exactly the right time and under exactly the right circumstances to reveal the Pharaoh’s dream. This should be apparent from a couple of things, namely, that the Cupbearer “forgot” about Joseph until two years later when Pharaoh had a dream. Had he remembered, Joseph would have been released immediately and returned to his family, never having a chance to tell Pharaoh what his dreams meant. Additionally, Joseph continued to prosper as a “Trustee” in prison lending his testimony that much more credibility.
I suspect that God is so sovereign that we can make whatever choices we please and his ultimate purpose will still win out. However, as Mordecai warned Esther, we should not think that our personal choices are without consequence. God may indeed achieve his purpose from another point, but as for us and our house, we will not escape if we fail to do what God has set before us. And who knows whether we have come to the Kingdom for such a time as this?
rick
I have seen that so often we have this need to create God to be good in our eyes. Everything that God does must be a blessing, must be pleasant, must be good from our limited human understanding of good. We can’t see how cancer can be good, or earthquakes, hurricanes. We don’t see how the death of children can possibly be good, but in the end, that is our arrogance. We suppose to know better than God what is best for us. We assume we know better than God what the future holds. In our arrogance, we propose artificial limits to God, saying He is inactive, that He is limited by our “free will”. It’s not a scriptural ideal, it’s a creation of limited human sensibility.
The ‘permissive will” thing has always seemed damaging, to me. When someone defies God, sins, and God’s grace allows for a good outcome anyway (think of a Christian marrying a lost person who later gets saved), then the offender can think it was OK since he was operating within God’s “permissive will”. Hence, no need to repent.
There’s obedience, and sin. There’s no name we can hang on disobedience to make it anything other than the latter.
Rick, you bring up an interesting question. Does God have a plan B? What is Moses would have said no? What is Abraham stayed in Ur? What if Daniel didn’t pray, or Isaiah said “I’m not telling them that”. Does God have a plan B? Can He be thwarted by our decision? If not, maybe we are not as free as we think we are.
Of course, the entire question is trumped by the fact that God knows what I will do tomorrow, and knew what I would do tomorrow since the foundation of the world. At some point, you can’t get around God being God.
Why does trying to figure out the will of God, the decrees of God, and issues of theodicy make my brain hurt?
When something like what happened in Haiti comes up, we tend to think more on questions like this, because so much suffering is concentrated in so little time and space. But, in reality, this is the stuff of everyday life. What happened on a “bigger scale” in Haiti happens all the time all around us on a smaller scale. We live in a world full of evil, suffering, and things that are hard for us to understand.
I suppose that, at the core, is what faith is all about. In spite of the fact that we don’t know how to explain it, we choose to believe and cling to certain truths: that God is all-powerful; that God is all-knowing; that God (like Aslan) is “not safe, but He is good”; that He is working all things together for the good of those who love Him (Rom. 8:28); that He is well acquainted with our grief and suffering, and feels it just like we do; that one day, everything that does not make sense right now, will make perfect sense, all wrongs will be righted, and all injustices avenged.
Still sin exists. And evil exists. And God cannot be tempted with evil, nor does He tempt any man with evil (James 1:13).
How do I explain it all? I am not sure. At times like this, it is almost inevitable to think on these things. And, it is helpful to have some kind of response for those who ask these questions. At the end, though, I think it comes down to faith.
Psalm 131
Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child. Let Israel hope in the LORD from henceforth and for ever.
Dan,
Your comment #5 brings up the thought about the original sin. We wanted to know the difference between good and evil like God, however, the sin of disobedience corrupted that ability; we have it but it is corrupt. Therefore, even though we would have obtained the knowledge of good and evil like God has, the part of us that could determine it died and our ability today to truly know the good of the Highest is unknown or distorted to us as He wades through all that is contaminated by sin to accomplish His will. What we see is only what God allows us to see. The rest must be left to the faith that was distributed to us in salvation.
Good point.
Wow,
A lot of great comments from everybody. I was waiting for some Arminians to jump in right away and attack all of my points, so God has been gracious to me in letting me see these positive comments.
Bill:
You said, “What you seem to be saying is that there really aren’t any laws of nature. I suspect I’m misreading?”
Yes and no. In Job 38:33 God says, “Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth?” I take this to mean things like gravity, the interaction of the moon and our tides, and even things like the weather and seasons. In that sense there are laws of nature. God could have done otherwise, but we know that God is a God of order and he chose to create these repetitive cycles and laws.
However, in Job 38:31 it says, “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion?” This implies that God can and does hold the stars in there place. We have to remember that nothing gets its power or source apart from the God who created it, so in one sense, gravity would not exist had God not created it, and I believe, continued to sustain it at all times. Later in the same passage it says that every lightning bolt it sent at his command. I used to believe that these forces of nature acted in God’s stead, as if he set up the four seasons and then worked on other things, but I believe that even the seasons come and go according to God’s active working.
Rick and Dan,
I will have to look into the chaos theory stuff. Sounds interesting and may pertain to the discussion. I do think, however, that questions regarding what would have happened or could have happened have more to do with God’s middle knowledge than with God’s will.
For instance, in one sense it must be an impossibility for someone to make a choice alternative to the one that God has planned would occur. For instance, could Judas Iscariot have not betrayed Jesus? I was discussing this with a friend and he said that God would have found another way for Jesus to be crucified. Hypothetically, I can see the validity of that argument, but that doesn’t really take into account the prophecies saying he would (see Acts 1). This is clearly a difficult thing to grasp, and I don’t claim to have a hold of it, but I do believe there is a way of explaining it.
Some people would argue that Judas (and we in the greater scheme of things) was a victim of God’s will. Judas certainly couldn’t have acted otherwise without showing the prophecies to be false. Others (from the Arminian camp) would argue that God was a victim of Judas’ will and He made the prophecies because He knew what Judas would do.
I think the better way of looking at this is that, yes, Judas did what God’s will and plan had predetermined would happen, but Judas was a victim of his own will too. Judas had the sinful desires. Judas opened himself to the Devil’s influences. Judas did what he wanted to do. This ties in with compatibilism, and it (as well as the entire discussion on God’s will) get’s messy when you try to fit God’s will with human responsibility perfectly together, but I think that if we are acting in accordance with our desires, what have we got to complain about?
Brother Andrew,
Excellent work! I completely agree with what you have written and have written very, very well. This is excellent biblical theology, and needs to be taught more often in our churches.
God’s will is perfect,…so I like the way you have taken away the neo-distinctions that are so popular today, born out through the popular counter factual movements that have been revived of late.
God’s will is revealed to us in the realm of redemption, so, I would also remark that the definition extends before Genesis 3 as well. I don’t see any reason given in scripture to deny that redemption is the theme beginning at Genesis 1:1.
Good Stuff!
Blessings,
Chris
David,
The earthquake in Haiti has spurned more of an interest in this topic lately. Oddly enough, I had already written the article and was getting ready to post it when it dawned on me that I should mention something about Haiti. The original post only referenced tsunamis.
Chris,
I totally agree. Ephesians 1:4 says that God chose us in Christ “from before the foundation of the world.” The cross was part of God’s eternal plan, and was certainly not a “Plan B.”
With “Plan B” thinking or “what if ” thinking we could conclude that all of the existing stories we have in scripture are already either the first, second or third approach. We don’t know if “Plan A” failed already. With that, we could really begin philosophize God’s whole plan. I mean that in a nice way. I just think that nothing can resist the Wisdom of God. He doesn’t have to force or contradict the laws He has established to accomplish His will. He can wade through the most complex situation and finalize it with the most perfect solution. He has to because it is for His glory anyway.
Nicely done, Andrew.
I do believe that God has set the universe in order with laws of nature, but they are still under His command. God’s sovereignty over these laws provides us with the best definition of miracles, namely, that miracles do not conform to natural way of things.
However, the laws of nature are not laws unto themselves that operate automatically. They operate the way God intends, until such time as He deems that they be suspended or set aside for His purposes.
God is consistent (see laws of nature). God is not bound (see miracles).
My struggle with this whole debate is in trying to help those who are deeply wounded or immature in faith. Perhaps, they cannot or will not consider a God who allows, permissively or otherwise, horrific calamity into their lives. In their pain, they are blind. I am reminded of the sisters of Lazarus (John 11). Jesus reasons, to some extent, with Martha. With Mary, He simply weeps. I take these distinct responses to differing personalities as indicative of the loving grace of God that meets people where they are and as a model for those who would serve as ministers of God’s grace. There are times to instruct those who are searching for answers and there are times to simply weep with those whose hurt is beyond words or understanding at the time.
This calls for great wisdom and compassion on the part of God’s servants and we would do well to call out to Him for that wisdom.
Andrew,
I don’t think that everyone that follows the systems of Arminius would actually disagree with you concerning God’s sovereignty. Even though Arminius never completely articulated his thoughts on Molina and the advent of counterfactual theory, … it was his followers that flamed the fire of “permissiveness” and introduced a God that was simply one step ahead of playing the game of bad choices.
But, there may be a few that follow the system of Arminius that would stick to the belief of “counterfactual” moments, and give you a run for your money.
Blessings,
Chris
This is an interesting discussion.
I believe that those of us who believe that God has counterfactual knowledge are not necessarily Molinists. There is a logical order in Molinism that implies conditional election. Molinists believe that if types of knowledge are placed in logical order, God first considered an infinite number of imagined worlds and circumstances that influenced what an infinite number of imagined persons could do. Second, He knew with certainty what free choices would be made by an infinite number of persons in those imagined worlds and circumstances (a second type of knowledge—middle knowledge), and thus He knew exactly what any imagined person would do. From the options provided by His knowledge, He chose to create the option with the beings and circumstances that would glorify Him the most. After that decision, God had a third type of knowledge—a complete knowledge of the world He actually created. A belief in God’s counterfactual knowledge does not require this order. Norman Geisler explained:
“There is no contradiction in God knowingly predetermining and predeterminately knowing from all eternity precisely what we would do with our free acts. For God determined that moral creatures would do things freely. He did not determine that they would be forced to perform free acts.”
Geisler, Chosen But Free (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 1999), 54.
In other words, election does not have to precede foreknowledge, and foreknowledge does not have to precede election in logical order. Election and foreknowledge are simply in accordance with one another. Again, Geisler said,
“Others object that self-determinism is contrary to God’s predestination. But self-determinists respond that God can predetermine in accordance with His foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2), insisting that ‘those he foreknew he also predestined’ (Rom. 8:29). God, they insist, can determine the future by means of free choice, since He omnisciently knows how moral free agents will freely act.”
Ibid., 224-225.
Thus, God knows what an infinite number of beings could do with freewill choices under an infinite number of circumstances. By only creating a finite number of beings under a finite number of circumstances, He can allow them to make freewill choices without violating His sovereign plan for the universe. Satan self-determined his sin; God did not cause Satan to sin. God knew that Satan would sin without causing Satan to sin.
I , like E.Y. Mullins (whose influence is clear in the 1925 BF&M), affirm T, U, and P, but I deny L and I. David Dockery described Mullins’ influence on Southern Baptists:
In Conner’s books Christian Doctrine and The Gospel of Redemption, he affirmed his belief in election but rejected limited atonement and irresistible grace. . . . His work was more influential west than east of the Mississippi River. With Conner teaching at Southwestern Seminary for four decades and Mullins at Southern Seminary during the first 30 years of the twentieth century, a new trajectory developed that shaped Southern Baptist life for many generations. . . . The two great theologians in Southern Baptist life in the first 50 years of the twentieth century, Mullins and Conner, emphasized human experience, human response, and soul competency and redirected the conversation among Southern Baptists.”
David S. Dockery, “Southern Baptists and Calvinism: A Historical Look,” in Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue, ed. E. Ray Clendenen and Brad J. Waggoner (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2008), 37-8.
The perfect/permissable construct as typically understood also leaves believers continually wringing their hands as to whether or not we’ve “discovered” God’s will correctly or if we’ve “missed” God’s will as if missing a bullseye at the center of a target. If God had intended for being in His will to be so difficult, then why did He give us Scripture and indwell us with His Spirit?
I do believe there is a “perfect” will of God, but not necessarily in the sense of “free of error” (though it is) but in the sense of “complete” or “comprehensive”. It includes everything that God knows and understands. And we’ll never know it like He does. Within that “perfect” will is God’s “revealed” will. He hasn’t left us to figure it all out on our own. He’s given us His Word. And He’s given us His Spirit to help us understand His Word. But that “revealed” will is broader and bigger than a bullseye. So, what so many believers do is put a figurative “dot” right in the middle of that revealed will and figure that’s the spot to which they need to aim.
So even in a perfect/revealed understanding it’s possible to fall right back into the hand wringig (and the accompanying listening for voices, waiting for impressions, relying on feelings, etc.) and worrying about “missing” God’s will. UNLESS God never intended for us to add the mysterious “dot” towards which to aim. What if God figured that in giving His Word and His Spirit to help us understand it, we would use wisdom (a biblical grace) and discernment (a spiritual gift) to live with liberty within the bounds of His revealed will?
Brother BT,
I knew you would have some comments my friend.
Southern has really been delving into Molina during the last twenty or so years. Southwestern has been there for some time as you have described, yet not all the professors use the theory as their theological foundation.
I think what I have found is that this theory continues along the same trajectory as new pursuits in information technology. The descriptions and pieces keep getting smaller and more rapid at “how” the information is churned, but the truth remains constant and is not changed. Technology works along the same lines as the counterfactual theory which has morphed many times and renamed its components. The theory makes for a loquacious theological debate, but the theory has little basis biblically (only mechanically to inspire the pursuit of man) and lacks the simplicity of the Gospel message.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, I think a great example of God’s counterfactual knowledge is in 1 Samuel 23:9-13:
“Now David knew that Saul was plotting evil against him; so he said to Abiathar the priest, ‘Bring the ephod here.’ Then David said, ‘O LORD God of Israel, Thy servant has heard for certain that Saul is seeking to come to Keilah to destroy the city on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down just as Thy servant has heard? O LORD God of Israel, I pray, tell Thy servant.’ And the LORD said, ‘He will come down.’ Then David said, ‘Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?’ And the LORD said, ‘They will surrender you.’ Then David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the pursuit.” (NASB)
God already knew the actual future; He knew that David and his men would leave Keilah before Saul would come there. God, however, also knew with certainty what the specific events in a non-actual future would be if David stayed in Keilah. David asked God what would happen if he stayed in Keilah (not an actual event). God told David what would happen if an actual event (leaving Keilah) were somehow changed. He said that the people of Keilah would surrender David to Saul. Of course, that surrender of David did not actually happen, but God knew with certainty that it would happen if David stayed in Keilah. David had a choice to make, and God already knew what his choice would be. Thus, David’s choice did not interfere with God’s sovereignty.
In the non-actual situation regarding the people of Keilah described above, did God know (with counterfactual knowledge) that the people of Keilah would make a particular decision, or did He know that He Himself would directly cause them to make a particular decision under those circumstances? I think the answer is obvious. God’s will was for David to live past the episode in Keilah, and thus He would not have caused the people of Keilah to surrender David to Saul. Under the circumstances present up to that point in time when David asked the question, God knew with certainty that the people of Keilah would react in only one way if David stayed in Keilah.
If God had imagined Himself intervening at that time and directly causing the people to make a particular decision, then there could have been more than one answer given to David. God could have said, “Well, I can imagine Myself causing them to surrender you, but I can also imagine Myself causing them to protect you.” David was asking God what the people would do, not what God would cause them to do. David did not ask God to protect him if he stayed in Keilah. God knew (with counterfactual knowledge) what the people of Keilah would do in a non-actual future.
A person could argue that the decision that would have been made by the people of Keilah in a non-actual future would not be freewill decision; rather, they could argue that it would be a non-freewill decision ultimately caused by the selfishness of their depraved natures. Remember, however, that terrorist suicide bombers are considered unselfish by their sympathizers. Behavior caused by depravity is not always easy for us to predict. In any case, it is important to understand that God is capable with His infinite knowledge of knowing the consequences of all decisions made by all beings under all circumstances.
Good discussion, though I fear that the content of the conversation may be elevating beyond what I am cabable of understanding
.
I liken this topic to the doctrine of the Trinity. We believe that:
1) God is one.
2) God is three persons.
3) Each person of the Godhead is fully God.
While we can confidently affirm these truths, we may never truly understand how they all work together. Doing so results in heretical teachings like Modalism or Arianism.
God’s will is quite similar:
1) Everything that comes to pass happens by the predetermined will of God.
2) Man is responsible for his sin.
Trying to make them fit together gets messy and we tend to either end up as fatalists or libertarians.
John,
I think you hit the nail on the head. As inciteful as these passages and discussions can be, if there is no application to our relationship with God and with others, we’re just wasting our time.
I used to follow the perfect/permissive will view closely, but when a close friend of mine died, I found more comfort in believing that God had a purpose in it and a plan for it than in believing that God had his hands tied on the issue. Even still, when people are hurting they need a shoulder to cry on before they need a theology lesson.
Good article Andrew,
I think that people too easily put God’s will in an either/or structure, and then argue for one or the other or some system of both, together as best they can. The problem is that when we look at events such as Haiti an either/or explanation just seems trite. When we say God willed something, we usually mean that He is the direct cause of the event. And that is where most people get knotted up. Either they want to say that somehow God’s will cannot be the cause of evil or they want to say that God is perfect and is the cause of evil. Both of these are insufficient and reduce God’s ability to work in a situation to simple direct causes. If we get this wrong, we are in danger of eastern mysticism, on the one hand, or of western deism on the other.
I think we need a paradigm shift. There are more ways for God to be involved than either directly causing an event or haplessly turning a blind eye. Aristotle’s four causes can shed some light here [I don't think his list is all encompassing, but it illustrates that there is more than one way to be related to an event]. This always gets interesting when discussing interpretation of events [eg "God caused the tsunami to punish polytheism"] IMO, that example is highly mystical and speculative. It assumes that 1) God can only be the direct cause, 2) that he is choosing to judge false belief through that event (and we would know this how?) and 3) it fails to explain the many diverse counter examples [eg. a Christian school is wiped out, but the neighboring mosque is saved...]. God is the cause of everything at some level or another, but we need not reduce his causation to direct causes. He cause it in the sense that he created the world and established laws that govern it. He certainly is omnipotent and able to work in spite of our rebellion and in spite of fallen creation. He definitely has ultimate purposes behind everything. But none of those reasons would lead us to conclude that he just magically threw a switch [ie, a direct cause].
All of that is still compatible with a “one will of God” framework.
Andrew,
In comment #22 where you mentioned that God’s will is similar, can both exist simultaneously somewhere besides time and space? Even when Jesus spoke, it was either divine or human, not both (I don’t recall it but I’m open if a reference is provided). If so, then our actions and responses must have the eternal element attached somehow.
Bruce
Brother BT,
When God teaches us the truth…it is certain that the truth never changes. All the situations with David and Saul are instructive to us in a real way for a clear purpose. A non-actual future (imaginary world/s) does not exist, which in essence is the ambiguity and undoing of the counterfactual theory for biblical exegesis.
Ecclesiastes 7:8 The end of a matter is better than its beginning; Patience of spirit is better than haughtiness of spirit.
Isaiah 46:8-11 “Remember this, and be assured; Recall it to mind, you transgressors. (9) “Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, (10) Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’; (11) Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.
God is actually working in this one world He created. We sometimes like to dream of other futures in other worlds unlike the one that God holds, yet the truth is that he “gives” the future.
Jeremiah 29:11 ‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.
The kind of assurance and faith that Jeremiah puts forth is not based in “if’s” and “counterfactuals”, it is based in the reality of a secure and declared future.
What Andrew has penned here,…I hope gets echoed many times over to our younger generations to come. We have been enticed and consumed with theological ambiguity for way to many years…
Blessings,
Chris
I don’t think a plan B is necessary.
I believe God created the initial conditions that made it possible for His will to be accomplished. Part of that will is for men and angels to be able to act freely. I believe that no matter what choices we make, we cannot thwart God’s purpose. The story of Balaam and Balak is evidence of that.
As for counterfactuals, we know for a fact that God knows “what if” and he is willing to tell us what would have happened on more than one occasion, the most well known being the “what if” regarding the rich man’s brothers response to the gospel if it was found in the Law and the Prophets compared to is someone rose from the dead and shared it with them.
rick
Chris, you said,
“All the situations with David and Saul are instructive to us in a real way for a clear purpose. A non-actual future (imaginary world/s) does not exist, which in essence is the ambiguity and undoing of the counterfactual theory for biblical exegesis.”
I agree that a non-actual future does not exist, but the passage teaches us that God knows exactly what would happen in a non-actual future. This type of knowledge is another facet of God’s omniscience.
You also said,
“The kind of assurance and faith that Jeremiah puts forth is not based in ‘if’s’ and ‘counterfactuals.’”
Jeremiah, however, did mention God’s counterfactual knowledge. Notice Jeremiah 23:21-22:
“I did not send these prophets, but they ran. I did not speak to them, but they prophesied. But if they had stood in My council, then they would have announced My words to My people, and would have turned them back from their evil way and from the evil of their deeds.” (NASB)
In other words, God knows what the false prophets would have done under different, non-actual circumstances. This statement in Jeremiah is thus a clear example of counterfactual knowledge.
God’s counterfactual knowledge is important because it explains how He can utilize human free will and fit it into His sovereign will to achieve the most glory for Him. God’s sovereign plan (Plan A) will certainly be accomplished because He can create a finite number of beings at a particular place and time who will make both freewill and non-freewill decisions that exactly fit into His plan. There is no need for a Plan B, Plan C, etc. Plan A definitely will be accomplished. Plan A includes Mike (BT) and Chris being born in the twentieth century. Plan B might have included our being born in the nineteenth century, and the resulting decisions we made would not have glorified Him as much as the decisions we made in the twentieth century.
Brother BT,
Jeremiah is simply announcing to us the absoluteness of God’s ways. Without God, prophets run…. Without God, prophets are not speaking for God. The “if” confirms the sureness of standing in Christ…it does not move us to think of some other future world where “I” might make the right decision.
Jeremiah 23:23 “Am I a God who is near,” declares the LORD, “And not a God far off?
I think I understand what you are trying to say though….
Blessings,
Chris
Bruce,
I may need you to rephrase your comment in #25 to get a firm grasp on what you are saying, but here goes.
You said, “Can both exist simultaneously somewhere besides time and space?” I’d have to answer no because anything that happens outside of time and space is beyond the bounds of human action and experience. It is therefore beyond the bounds of human responsibility. Whereas the Trinity exists outside of time and space, we do not.
I also believe we should tread carefullly when discussing the dual nature of Jesus. I think trying to separate Jesus’ actions into his “human” actions and “divine” actions is like trying to separate the syrup from a glass of Mountain Dew—we can’t do it and still maintain the integrity of the subject.
Perhaps one of our problems as theological thinkers is we try to reconcile two parodoxical truths, forgetting that only things opposed to each other require reconciliation. I often find it best to simply affirm the truths I know and to let God “separate the joint from the marrow.”
Chris, you said,
“It does not move us to think of some other future world where ‘I’ might make the right decision.”
Plan A (God’s sovereign will) is the actual future, and every decision made in the actual future is the “right decision” in the sense that every decision fits perfectly into God’s sovereign will. Plans B, C, D, etc. are not needed in the actual future because God has already seen them with His counterfactual knowledge, and He knows they will not glorify Him as much as plan A. In Plan A, God creates a finite number of beings at particular times that He knows will do exactly what is necessary at exactly the right times, and thus He “causes all things to work together for good to those who love God.” He orchestrates every detail of the future without violating freewill decisions and without directly causing evil. He creates beings such as Satan that He knows will ultimately and finally reject Him, and yet those beings fit into His sovereign will for the universe.
BT,
How do you reconcile this apparent determinism with free will?
rick
One thing I think is significant is that the Bible states again and again that God is in control of everything. Proverbs 16:33 says, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.”
The Bible also states again and again that we are culpable for our sin. John 9:41 says, “Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.”
I find it interesting that the Bible doesn’t place a major emphasis on our “free will” or “freedom of choice” in regard to God’s sovereignty. We mistakenly believe that if we are to have true freedom, we must be able to choose Non-A or A, but after the fact, the point is we couldn’t have chosen otherwise. To be really free we must be able to choose sin or holiness. We call that freedom. The Bible calls that slavery (Rom. 6:16-18).
The Bible repeatedly states that sin is slavery. Most of us believe that we can’t sin in heaven. Does that mean that we are more free or less free? I hope you would agree with me that we will be more free.
We should therefore think of our freedom as a “freedom to pursue (what we desire).” We are free to pursue our desires, but that limits us because our desires are easily influenced and ultimately our nature is either sinful or holy. In that sense, when we are with God in heaven, we will have a new nature, with a “freedom to pursue” that which we most desire: Him.
God is in control but that doesn’t mean he has to be a micromanager.
I am in control of the temperature in my house (much to my children’s chagrin who want it to be much warmer than it is right now). I adjust the thermostat. And then I leave it alone to do what it is designed to do when it is designed to do it. Do I know what my thermometer is doing at any given moment? No. Does that mean the temperature is out of control in my house? Hardly. It means just the opposite. It is only out of control systems that require micromanagement, not the ones that are in control.
Which pancreases require their owners to monitor their blood sugars and take insulin on a daily, and sometimes even more frequent basis – the ones that are in control or the ones that are out of control?
It is God’s ability to achieve his purpose through the free acts of men and angels that demonstrates his control. Regardless of what we do, his will is going to be accomplished. Why? Because he has the power to intervene? Actually, no. It’s because he doesn’t have to intervene that he is in control.
This is where the Calminian controversy breaks down. Somehow God must get personally involved in deciding the fate of every individual on the planet. Seriously? Why? Why can’t be so much in control that he sets the initial conditions that make his interference in the affairs of men unnecessary? Now that’s sovereign. Am I a Deist and believe that God has wound the clock and is watching to see how it turns out? No. I think that model is inadequate because God clearly is involved with his creation. Am I an open theist that God is waiting to see how it turns out? No. I believe that is unnecessary. Contingency is a quality that is only binding on creatures confined to the temporal plane. A multidimensional being such as God must, of necessity, be, would not be bound by such constraints. I would say that God not only knows the future, but he knows all possible futures. Nor do I say this as mere hand waving. God knows all possible futures because he set the initial conditions in which those futures could arise.
I see this argument as lacking in common sense sometimes. For instance, if I were to play a chess master, the outcome of the game would never, ever be in doubt. I would be totally free to move any piece anywhere on the board within the bounds of legal moves. The chess master would be free to do the same. Is it necessary for him to know every possible move in order to beat me? Hardly. Does he have to be able to predict every move I make in order to be in control of the game? Not by a long shot.
I see history working out the same way. God said that Samson would begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines. Samson was disobedient to God his entire life, trying as hard as he could to not live out his destiny, yet he never could escape it. He tried marrying a Philistine. Didn’t work and led to her death, her family’s death, and the destruction of the Philistine harvest and almost open war with Israel. The fact that Samson was willing to let his countrymen make him a prisoner and kill the Philistines himself signaled more about his reluctance to assume the judgeship than his bending to the will of God. He tried sleeping with Philistine prostitutes, but they tried to ambush him. He even shacked up with a Philistine woman, but she betrayed him. The fact is, God allowed even Samson’s rebellion to achieve his purpose. It wasn’t until Samson yielded to God’s pull at the end of his life that we see Samson becoming a participant of God’s plan rather than an opponent.
That’s how “God’s Will” works. It is whether or not we join with God in achieving his intentions or stand against him. It does not mean that his intentions will fail if we oppose them. It only means that WE will fail.
Brother BT,
Let me try to explain how “counterfactual theory” leaves us dry or wanting when compared to the theme of redemptive biblical context…. say of the “Spiritual gift” of joy. I meet every Tuesday morning at 6:00AM with other leaders from four other churches in our area of the city. We did an brief exegesis of joy this morning….so it is fresh on the brain.
For instance, the fruit of Joy exists as a gift given of the Spirit. Meaning, that the fruit exists prior to creation and is at some point given to God’s adopted. So, we know that the Spirit “has fruit” and the Spirit is the creator and the sustainer of this fruit, joy, given to the adopted child. Truth (God’s Word) exposes us to this joy by the power of the Spirit in our lives. So that in the substance of faith, joy is a reality, no matter the circumstance. The Apostles discuss this reality over and over again throughout the NT.
In order to know and live the joy, we are now aware of the freedom to agree with the Holy Spirit and exercise joy because we are a new creation. Should I desire (fleshly) to forfeit the Spirit’s joy there are certain consequences. There is no “if” factor involved. It is not “if” I do it (looking to future possibilities) that changes my condition, it is when I agree with God that real change occurs. This is my sanctification. In other words, the substance of knowing and living out “joy” (already existent and maintained by the Holy Spirit) is by faith (Hebrews 11:1 / Substance and Evidence). We do not condition God by “not” living by the Spirit….we forfeit what is already existent.
The Apostle Paul summed it up well when he gives us a view of why we have freedom….
Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
With freedom at work in the beloved, we are set free to agree with the Holy Spirit. We are already forfeiting joy in real time, for instance,…when in our freedom we live in the flesh. That was the Apostle Paul’s point in midway through the letter to the Romans (chapter 7).
James put it this way….
James 4:13-17 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” (14) Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. (15) Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.” (16) But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil. (17) Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.
God leads us to believe “we will live and also do this or that”…. His instruction is absolute, not based or conditioned by any counterfactuals (what would have been’s)…because “to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin”.
So, as Andrew has said very well,….God is an active God, and His will is Perfect.
Blessings,
Chris
Rick,
Question: Do you believe that God’s plan included Samson’s rebellion or just the outcome? That is my biggest reservation with the approach that focuses only on the outcome. I was discussing this topic with a friend and he said that Judas could have chosen not to betray Christ. The problem with that is the prophecies relating to that in the OT would not have been fulfilled. In one sense Judas’ betrayal was the action leading to the outcome. But in another sense Judas’ betrayal was the outcome of prophecy. In the grand scheme of things, we cannot distinguish between the means and the end, between the action and the outcome. The reason is because each action is the outcome of another action, and each outcome is the action leading to another outcome.
Perhaps the most visible point for this that I can see is birth and personhood. The Bible talks about God’s personal involvement in our design using words like “formed you in the womb” and “created.” Yet, for me to be me, I had to come from that specific sperm and that specific egg. If I had been concieved a day later, a month later, or a year later, I would have had a different genetic makeup and different life experiences. It’s hard to view God as active and relational when our focus is on some transcendent ability to control from afar. It is also hard to maintain an “open” view of God when you realize just how into the details He actually is with things like lots (Prov. 16:33) and genetic makeup (above example).
Rick, you asked,
“How do you reconcile this apparent determinism with free will?”
I think the word “apparent” in your question is important. What I described in the above comments is not really determinism. Alvin Plantinga provided some relevant comments in the following long quote that will help us:
“There is a fundamental watershed, in philosophical anthropology, between those who think of human beings as free-free in the libertarian sense—and those who espouse determinism. According to determinists, every human action is a consequence of initial conditions outside our control by way of causal laws that are also outside our control. Sometimes underlying this claim is a picture of the universe as a vast machine where, at any rate at the macroscopic level, all events, including human actions, are determined by previous events and causal laws. On this view every action I have in fact performed was such that it wasn’t within my power to refrain from performing it; and if, on a given occasion I did not perform a given action, then it wasn’t then within my power to perform it. If I now raise my arm, then, on the view in question, it wasn’t within my power just then not to raise it. Now the Christian thinker has a stake in this controversy just by virtue of being a Christian. For she will no doubt believe that God holds us human beings responsible for much of what we do—responsible, and thus properly subject to praise or blame, approval or disapproval. But how can I be responsible for my actions, if it was never within my power to perform any actions I didn’t in fact perform, and never within my power to refrain from performing any I did perform? If my actions are thus determined, then I am not rightly or justly held accountable for them; but God does nothing improper or unjust, and he holds me accountable for some of my actions; hence it is not the case that all of my actions are thus determined. The Christian has an initially strong reason to reject the claim that all of our actions are causally determined—a reason much stronger than the meager and anemic arguments the determinist can muster on the other side. Of course if there were powerful arguments on the other side, then there might be a problem here. But there aren’t; so there isn’t. Now the determinist may reply that freedom and causal determinism are, contrary to initial appearances, in fact compatible. He may argue that my being free with respect to an action I performed at a time t for example, doesn’t entail that it was then within my power to refrain from performing it, but only something weaker—perhaps something like if I had chosen not to perform it, I would not have performed it. Indeed, the clearheaded compatibilist will go further. He will maintain, not merely that freedom is compatible with determinism, but that freedom requires determinism. He will hold with Hume that the proposition S is free with respect to action A or S does A freely entails that S is causally determined with respect to A—that there are causal laws and antecedent conditions that together entail either that S performs A or that S does not perform A. And he will back up this claim by insisting that if S is not thus determined with respect to A, then it’s merely a matter of chance—due, perhaps, to quantum effects in S’s brain-that S does A. But if it is just a matter of chance that S does A then either S doesn’t really do A at all, or at any rate S is not responsible for doing A. If S’s doing A is just a matter of chance, then S’s doing A is something that just happens to him; but then it is not really the case that he performs A—at any rate it is not the case that he is responsible for performing A. And hence freedom, in the sense that is required for responsibility, itself requires determinism. But the Christian thinker will find this claim monumentally implausible. Presumably the determinist means to hold that what he says characterizes actions generally, not just those of human beings. He will hold that it is a necessary truth that if an agent isn’t caused to perform an action then it is a mere matter of chance that the agent in question performs the action in question. From a Christian perspective, however, this is wholly incredible. For God performs actions, and performs free actions; and surely it is not the case that there are causal laws and antecedent conditions outside his control that determine what he does. . . . What is really at stake in this discussion is the notion of agent causation: the notion of a person as an ultimate source of action. According to the friends of agent causation, some events are caused, not by other events, but by substances, objects-typically personal agents. And at least since the time of David Hume, the idea of agent causation has been languishing. It is fair to say, I think, that most contemporary philosophers who work in this area either reject agent causation outright or are at the least extremely suspicious of it. They see causation as a relation among events; they can understand how one event can cause another event, or how events of one kind can cause events of another kind. But the idea of a person, say, causing an event, seems to them unintelligible, unless it can be analyzed, somehow, in terms of event causation. It is this devotion to event causation, of course, that explains the claim that if you perform an action but are not caused to do so, then your performing that action is a matter of chance. For if I hold that all causation is ultimately event causation, then I will suppose that if you perform an action but are not caused to do so by previous events, then your performing that action isn’t caused at all and is therefore a mere matter of chance. . . . Why should a Christian philosopher join in the general obeisance to event causation? It is not as if there are cogent arguments here. The real force behind this claim is a certain philosophical way of looking at persons and the world; but this view has no initial plausibility from a Christian perspective and no compelling argument in its favor.”
An example of agent causation is Satan’s first sin. Satan was in a perfect environment. No one tempted Satan to sin. Satan was not created with a depraved nature. Those people who emphasize event causation and deny the possibility of agent causation would have to affirm that God directly caused Satan to sin, an affirmation which is obviously wrong. In contrast, those people who admit the possibility of agent causation could affirm that Satan’s sin was self-determined (self-caused).
Five-point Calvinists are not in full agreement on the possibility of libertarian free will. Arthur Pink said that it indeed occurred when Adam first sinned, while R.C. Sproul denies the possibility of libertarian free will.
Perhaps I should define terms at this point.
Libertarian free will is usually defined as the power of contrary choice. The person with libertarian free will can go either right or left at the fork in the road and is not compelled to go either way by predispositions. He is in equipoise and then self-determines his choice. Sproul said such a person would be stuck at the fork in the road.
In contrast, compatibilistic freedom is usually defined as being able to do what you already wanted to do. It denies the power of contrary choice. The person is free to go right if he is predisposed to do so, but he cannot go to the left. Jonathan Edwards was a proponent of this type of freedom. Most five-point Calvinists believe that God must regenerate a sinner before the sinner can choose to surrender his life in repentance and faith.
With His counterfactual knowledge, God knows what an infinite number of imagined beings would definitely decide to do, and He only creates a limited number of those beings (the beings that fit into His sovereign plan). Thus, God’s plan A occurs flawlessly even though it allows for libertarian freewill decisions. This situation seems like determinism to many people, but it is really not determinism.
Determinism does not allow for libertarian free will/agent causation.
In regard to salvation, I believe that a special form of conviction by the Holy Spirit puts a non-Christian in equipoise so that he can make a libertarian freewill choice to accept Jesus as his Savior and Lord. After surrendering his life to Jesus in repentance and faith, the Christian is no longer in equipoise, and he cannot choose to become a non-Christian.
I hope all this helps. Sorry about the length.
P.S.: Plantinga’s quote above is from the following:
http://www.faithandphilosophy.com/article_advice.php
Brother BT,
What do you think is the reason God would want us to believe in an “infinite number of imagined beings” as part of His nature? Is there any biblical evidence for such?
I can understand why man would be interested to try and explain God in this manner. But, is there any evidence in God’s Word that points us to thinking about an “infinite number of imagined beings”?
Blessings,
Chris
BT,
Are you suggesting that God puts all non-Christians in “equipoise” so they can make a libertarian free will choice to accept or reject Jesus? What about those who’ve never heard the gospel?
Also, your comment #37 seems to say that we can make a truly random choice free from all predispositions or past events (a contra-causal choice). Is that what you’re saying?
Lastly, if I understand you right, you advocate libertarian freedom that God knows about and He lets play out in history, is that correct? Would you say that Pharoah had libertarian freedom when God “hardened his heart?” What about the Egyptians that God made “favorably disposed toward” the Israelites (Ex. 11:3)? Did they have a choice to not be favorably disposed?
Andrew,
You asked, “Do you believe that God’s plan included Samson’s rebellion or just the outcome?”
I believe this is a false dilemma that obfuscates the nature of a plan.
Do you believe that the Chess Master has only the outcome in mind or the individual moves? Because he is a limited human being, he makes contingent decisions based on my moves so that he does not need to know ahead of time what moves I am going to make in order to win the game. His knowledge of how the game is played and the possible combinations available to me make it unnecessary for him to know what moves I’m going to make ahead of time.
God’s prophecy was that Samson would begin to deliver the Israelites from the Philistines. He never said that Samson would be a willing or amenable participant in the process.
God’s plan was that his people walk according to his law which includes not intermarrying with the indigenous tribes. Samson violated that law. Samson was a Nazir from birth and broke the terms of his vow by touching dead bodies, cutting his hair, and (we can only assume based on his pattern with the other parts of his vow) possibly eating grapes, raisins, dolmas, or drinking wine. In that sense, Samson was not following God’s plan or keeping his will. However, Samson was not sufficiently powerful (any more than I am sufficiently powerful to beat a chess master) to circumvent the plan of God.
I tend not to view these discussions from hypothetical or theoretical perspectives, but rather from what has happened or is actually happening. I believe that I can act with freedom to join with God in his plan by keeping his revealed will and making decisions that spread the Kingdom or I can choose to resist his plan and make myself miserable. I like Mordecai’s advice to Esther in this regard: Esther 4:13Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, “Do not think to yourself that in the king’s palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. 14For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”
Fascinating quote, BT.
It seems to me that there is an excluded middle somewhere but I just cannot put my finger on it.
In the realm of physics, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are inherently incompatible. Einstein could never accept the uncertainty and indeterminism required to get quantum mechanics to work. I think Plantinga is trying to put together two pieces of a puzzle that requires three pieces. Or more.
While I believe it is possible for an all-knowing God to know all possible futures for an infinite array of circumstances, I don’t believe it is necessary. I do not believe that Judas had “no other choice but to betray Christ.” I believed that the choice to betray or not betray was an entangled choice in that had Judas not done it, one of the others would have done it, even if for vary different reasons and by different means.
The same with God forming people in the womb. I don’t believe he has to micromanage sperm to get what he wants. Nor does he have to know an infinite number of possibilities to achieve his purpose. I don’t have to know or worry about every individual cell in my body to get my entire body to do what I want. Nor is my body not under my control just because I don’t directly will any one cell to do any certain thing.
Andrew, you asked,
“Are you suggesting that God puts all non-Christians in ‘equipoise’ so they can make a libertarian free will choice to accept or reject Jesus? What about those who’ve never heard the gospel?”
No, I am not suggesting that God puts all non-Christians in such a condition. He puts some of them in equipoise so that they can make a libertarian freewill choice. He is not unfair to the non-Christians who do not experience such a condition. With His counterfactual knowledge, He knows that they would reject Jesus if they were in such a condition.
You also asked,
“Also, your comment #37 seems to say that we can make a truly random choice free from all predispositions or past events (a contra-causal choice). Is that what you’re saying?”
Let me clarify. Those people in equipoise are not free from all predispositions, but their sinful predispositions are balanced with godly inclinations brought on by the special conviction of the Holy Spirit. The choice that they make is not a random choice; rather, it is a self-determined (self-caused) choice made from a position of equipoise.
Finally, you said,
“Lastly, if I understand you right, you advocate libertarian freedom that God knows about and He lets play out in history, is that correct? Would you say that Pharoah had libertarian freedom when God ‘hardened his heart?’ What about the Egyptians that God made ‘favorably disposed toward’ the Israelites (Ex. 11:3)? Did they have a choice to not be favorably disposed?”
Yes, I advocate libertarian freedom that God knows about and that He lets play out in history. I also believe, however, that some of our decisions are non-libertarian. For example, both the OT and NT distinguish between willful sins and unintentional sins.
In regard to Pharaoh’s hardened heart, I have stated that not every decision is a libertarian freewill decision. Douglas Stewart, an OT professor at Gordon-Conwell Seminary, commented on Pharaoh’s hardening:
“In terms of the classical theological-philosophical issue of free will versus determinism, none of the references to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is decisive. That is because God’s causing Pharaoh to be stubborn is simply not presented in the narrative as a general permanent phenomenon (eternal election or rejection) but rather as an ad hoc action of God, temporary in nature (i.e., Pharaoh’s mind was not permanently made stubborn so that he had no ability to repent later in life) and limited to the special purpose of humiliating the Egyptians and their false religion. . . . So, we would contend, is the perspective of Paul’s point in Rom 9:17-18. The Exodus narrative cannot properly be read as teaching determinism.”
Stewart, “Exodus,” vol. 2 in The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006), 150.
I believe that a permanent hardening occurs when a non-Christian ultimately and finally rejects Jesus as His Lord and Savior while under the special conviction of the Holy Spirit. Such an ultimate and final rejection is the unpardonable sin.
Chris, you asked,
“What do you think is the reason God would want us to believe in an ‘infinite number of imagined beings’ as part of His nature? Is there any biblical evidence for such?”
Notice Psalm 147:5 — “Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.”
Also notice what the Calvinist John Gill said about God’s understanding as he commented on the verse:
“It includes not only the knowledge of all things that are, or certainly will be, but of all things possible, or which he could bring into being if he would.”
Rick, you said,
“I believed that the choice to betray or not betray was an entangled choice in that had Judas not done it, one of the others would have done it, even if for vary different reasons and by different means.
The same with God forming people in the womb. I don’t believe he has to micromanage.”
I don’t believe God has to micromanage every decision in the sense of direct causation of every decision. Nevertheless, I believe that He is omniscient and knows exactly what each decision will be. The actual future is His plan A (His sovereign plan), and Plans B, C, and D are not needed in the actual future. He already knows what would happen in Plans B, C, and D in his counterfactual knowledge. He knows that Plan A is best, and thus Plan A is what we see unfolding in front of us.
BT,
Why does he need counterfactual knowledge? Are you saying that he could not have set the initial conditions such that the free choices of men and angels would achieve his purpose?
rick
Rick, you asked,
“Why does he need counterfactual knowledge? Are you saying that he could not have set the initial conditions such that the free choices of men and angels would achieve his purpose?”
I don’t always know why God does things as He does. For example, He could have created Adam, Eve, and a fully-formed universe in the same instant. In contrast, He took His time and did not create everything in the same instant.
In regard to your question about conterfactual knowledge, I think the free choices of men and angels do indeed achieve His purpose. God does intervene in the universe’s time line to do certain things (e.g., place some non-Christians under special conviction), but He has always known that all decisions (freewill and otherwise) will fit into His Plan A. Because He possesses counterfactual knowledge, He has always known that the actual universe would glorify Him more than an infinite number of hypothetical universes would glorify Him.
Andrew,
From comment #30. What I meant about “outside time and space” is, of course, eternity. I do believe eternity is where the combination of certain thoughts and activities take place in complete harmony and “simultaneously”, as well. The best example is the Trinity. Of course, the Trinity presently exists in both One and Three in heaven and yet the Holy Spirit and Jesus live within us here in our time and space. The explanation for that only exists within God’s inner sanctum. What lives in me can give me the eternal insight of the kingdom and, at the same time, give me discernment about time and space.
I would not try to separate statements Jesus said to be divine or human although many of His statements are worthy of meditation whether we can explain them or not. That kind of meditation may give some of us a headache, but, it is necessary for our sanctification.
I believe God’s sovereign control and man’s will are separate and at the same time must work in harmony within time and space. Though the thought may not be conceived simultaneous in time and space, it has to be with God in the eternal realm. Both thoughts separate and together at the same time. My salvation was a total act of God and, at the same time, a total act of my will. On earth it cannot be simultaneously accomplished but within the character of God it must co-exist in harmony; separate yet together at the same time. Because God is eternal and always was and always will be, the thought of His choosing me was never conceived, it was always a part of His conscience determination to elect me, however, there was a time and place where the connection took place. Now my head is hurting.
The strong Armenian and Calvinist camps lack the ability to combine the thoughts of some issues that both have biblical support on. God is not man and man, in his natural debased state, cannot see God in a different dimension other than what he senses about himself because he is mortal. All references come from within a man and eternal thinking comes from one born again and growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. Some miss the eternal thoughts because of being caught up in carnal thinking.
At this place I need a disclaimer that would distant me from in-depth detail to prove all that I have said. When talking about God and eternity we can only use the sky as a writing pad and the ocean filled with ink to express all that could be said about Him and His character. These comments have been a meditation of mine for quite a while. More detail may be needed but I will save it for other days of blogging.
Rick and BT,
I’d love to interact more with each of your points, but time limits me right now. Responses are forthcoming
.
In regard to God’s will and the disobedience of Samson:
One piece that has bothered me both in writing my article and in researching the views associated with God’s will is the fact that we commonly use the same terminology for different concepts. One will, God’s “revealed will,” is the way things ought to be as God has commanded. He commands us to obey His law. This will can be violated. People can kill each other. This will is broken. In that sense, Samson did not do according to God’s plan.
When I use the term “God’s plan,” I mean it in the sense of God’s predetermined layout for His space/time creation. If Samson sinned and disobeyed God, it was in accordance with God’s plan. But God doesn’t judge us according to our conformity to His sovereign will. Everything that occurs in space/time history will occur as God has determined that it would. God judges us according to our conformity to His revealed will.
In the article I dealt with the story of Joseph coming to power in Egypt. God didn’t originally plan to have Joseph come to power through some wholly righteous act, but then his brothers tried to get in the way, so God maneuvered to bring about the outcome He originally had in mind anyway. The point isn’t that God turned a bad situation into something good, or that the chessmaster had to take three extra moves to win the game. The point is that the sin of the brothers was part of God’s redemptive plan. God chose for it to happen that way. The sin of the brothers was part the “Plan A,” not just the outcome of Joseph saving everyone from the famine.
Lastly, the verses you mentioned from Esther support this conclusion. Mordeccai knew that God’s sovereign plan was to save the Jews, but he didn’t know if Esther was the person He would use to do it. But Mordeccai did know that if Esther didn’t do anything, she would most certainly be judged for failing to comply with God’s revealed (moral) will.
Brother Bruce,
I’m sure you already realize this, …..
John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, (13) who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Salvation is all of God and none of us. Belief is a response to God, not cooperation. Belief is only real as the Spirit gives life alone through Christ alone…and we cry Abba Father!
One of the dangers of jibjabbin’ about counterfactual theory, is that we can begin to think that God is complimentary with our decision in salvation. That is unbiblical. The Apostle Paul would have to send his epistles back for revision if that were the case….and the Jews would have then have a reasonable argument with Paul in his letter to the Romans.
Blessings,
Chris
Andrew,
You said, “The point is that the sin of the brothers was part of God’s redemptive plan. God chose for it to happen that way. The sin of the brothers was part the “Plan A,” not just the outcome of Joseph saving everyone from the famine.”
Why is that necessary? Even Joseph speaks of God taking the evil intentions of the brothers and turning them to a good outcome. Genesis 50:20 “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.”
Why does God have to plan for his brothers to be evil? Why can he not just plan to get Joseph into Egypt at the right time? As I said earlier, if God was truly in control, the brothers could have chosen to be kind and responsible and Joseph still would have made it to Egypt. That is the message I believe Esther is pointing out, that God’s system is so robust, and He is so sovereign that our choices are not capable of thwarting his intentions. If Esther followed the advice and the king recognized her, the people would be saved. If Esther followed the advice and died, her death may have set in motion events that would have saved her people. If Esther had not followed the advice, this action may very well have been the catalyst for deliverance to arise from another place. In a sense, the game is “rigged” in that in all outcomes favor God. It’s just not clear who gets the points along the way.
I still do not see how your proposal is any different from determinism.
Rick,
My proposal isn’t any different from determinism, if determinism means that God has decided how all of history will play out and that it will not deviate from that plan. History is predetermined and not “open.” Even minute differences in the way history has played out would drastically affect every subsequent event. That’s where we get the term “Butterfly effect.” What if David had stayed in Keilah and Saul had killed him? Would Uriah have died? Would Solomon be born and reign and build the temple? Would Jesus have descended from David’s non-existant line? We can sit and debate the hypothetical all we want, but the point is that history is playing out exactly as God has determined.
Here are some other scriptures to take into account:
But Moses said to the LORD, “Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue.” Then the LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? (Exodus 4:10-11).
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD (Proverbs 16:33).
And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place (Acts 17:26).
A man’s steps are from the LORD; how then can man understand his way (Proverbs 20:24)?
Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? Why should a living man complain, a man, about the punishment of his sins (Lamentations 3:37-39)?
The Bible doesn’t take time defending man’s “free will,” and I don’t either. I agree that we act as we are most inclined, but ultimately it is God who willed it (see Proverbs 20:24 above and the verse below).
The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD (Proverbs 16:1).
Andrew,
You said, “My proposal isn’t any different from determinism, if determinism means that God has decided how all of history will play out and that it will not deviate from that plan. History is predetermined and not “open.” Even minute differences in the way history has played out would drastically affect every subsequent event.”
Thank you for clarifying. Since it is obviously predetermined that I write this, I hope you enjoy it.
I believe your reasoning is flawed in misunderstanding dynamic self-regulating systems. The action of any individual air molecule in my house has no real bearing on the temperature of the house. It is the thermostat that controls temperature and if it drops too low, the thermostat kicks the heater on.
Esther 4 points out that individual actions are not sufficient to thwart God’s plan. Regardless of Esther’s decision, the outcome would favor God’s people. Personally, I believe when we choose the “wrong” actions, that choice sets things in motion so that the thing God wants to happen actually happens. This is why I believe God’s universe is a robust system requiring neither Plan A or Plan B, or C, or D. Why? Because I believe we could rewind history and pick strategic points and if we ask someone to choose differently and they did, that action would set in motion an alternative course of events that still had the outcome God intended.
This is why I believe man can be completely free, i.e. uncoerced and not deterministically programmed, and still achieve God’s purpose even if he picks the wrong thing.
Had Adam and Even not sinned, I do not think God’s plan would have been messed up. Had Israel never asked for a king, I think God would have still been able to accomplish his purpose, and likely been able to do it easier.
riock
Brother Rick,
Your views are very close to Dabney where he states that the properties of God’s degree are, “1st Unity. It is one act of the Divine mind; and not many. This act is at least suggested by Scripture, which speaks of it usually as a purpose, or a counsel. It follows from the nature of God. As His natural knowledge is all immediate and contemporaneous, not successive, like ours, and His comprehension of it all infinitely complete always, His purpose founded thereon, must be a single, all comprehensive and simultaneous act. Besides, the whole decree is eternal and immutable. All therefore must co-exist together always in God’s mind.”
Dabney probably does not mix the physical worlds as you might. Which I’m only guessing from our short dialogue here….but the thought process seems similiar.
Determinism has forms that are not considered programatic or void of volition. So, determinism can be closely related to what you have stated as well.
Blessings,
Chris
Rick, you said,
“Had Adam and Even not sinned, I do not think God’s plan would have been messed up.”
I disagree. Notice Romans 8:28 — “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
God works “all things” together, not just some things. Every detail fits into His sovereign plan.
Now BT,…look out, your leaning toward determinism
-cj
P.S.: Another implication of God’s omniscience is that He is never taken by surprise. He knows what every freewill decision will be. God never makes a decision to react to something unexpected. That type of decision would imply that He did not know something before making a decision to react to it. He knows everything that will happen in advance, and He has always known how He would intervene and react to things happening in the unvierse. In that sense, God never makes a decision. He has always known that He would create the world and that He would intervene in the universe’s time line at particular times and places. The human time line is defined by change. God never changes–His knowledge never increases, and His sovereign plan never changes. He is thus outside the universe’s time line. He lives in the eternal present and can see past, present, and future all at the same time. Notice Isaiah 46:9-10 — “Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure.’” The second Adam (Jesus) was needed because of the sin of the first Adam. God is proactive. He is not reactive in the sense of being surprised and having to make an unexpected decision.
BT,
I agree with the verse you cite. Adam and Eve sinned, yet God managed to work it out according to his plan. Joseph was sold into slavery, yet God worked it out according to his plan. Samson was a screw-up, yet God worked it out according to his plan.
Ro. 8:28 backs up my assertion that in a system where God is so sovereign that he can achieve his purpose through the free acts of men and angels, it is robust enough that no matter what happens, for good or ill, in conformance or opposition to his stated goal, Our Lord is still able to circumvent even the most evil of intentions and turn them to his advantage.
I just watched an old episode of The Unit last night where a diplomat made a decision that was contrary to intent of the CIA observer. However, it actually played right into the hands of the Unit. It was a classic case where everyone acted freely and acted to prevent the unit from achieving their objective, yet every action the opponents took only helped the Unit further its goals. The only thing “determined” was the outcome.
I think God has a better handle on things than even Sergeant Major Blane.
rick
I like the way Jesus pays attention to detail as He discuss the Father…..
Matthew 10:29-32 “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. (30) “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. (31) “So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows. (32) “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.
The Father is active with great specificity and purpose in every nanosecond of time as we perceive. All things hold together by His power….and in marvelous and meticulous detail.
So it is in salvation to His Glory. These are always fun exercises….good to make the brain think…thanks guys.
Blessings,
Chris
BT,
I appreciate your defense of God’s omniscience. I think it is kind of you to say such regarding God.
However, I am curious as to why you feel it is necessary for God to micromanage. What necessitates God managing every thought of every human being for all time?
Doesn’t it show more sovereignty for God to create a world and say, “Play amongst yourselves,” knowing that he has created a playground where nothing can happen that he doesn’t want to happen, or can’t turn into a lesson, or cannot somehow used for his own glory?
rick
Chris,
I am unlearned when it comes to the “tags” that the biblically educated have assigned to certain spiritual things. Truly, I mean that with the highest respect to those of you who have spent the time and have the capacity to assign to and remember the dissect of the spiritual world within Christendom. I am not familiar with the tag “counterfactual theory” but assume that my comment fits within that idea. I hear the terms each of you use along with the well placed wording of the English language and sometimes I feel totally inadequate to respond to your comments. However, knowing that you are Christians first, I believe, even if you believe I am wrong, you will have the same compassion and love and pity that Christ has for me.
I can, and do, believe 100% of what you said. I can teach (with full authority) the whole truth of what it means to be elected by God; it is none of us and all of Him. In what I said, God’s complete sovereign election is in place separate from everything else. Additionally, based upon how the Trinity works along with how prayer works, I see a characteristic about God that complicates my mortal reasoning in how He accomplishes His will in my salvation without forcing me against my will or even influencing my will. Since my present will is corrupt, it is still my will even when He quickens me. I then respond with my awakened spirit to His gift of Salvation. When my spirit was quickened, it was an immediate response, as if it was simultaneous. However you describe it, I believe both God’s call and my will responded in concert to the salvation of my soul. Not what was dead in me, but, what God quickened. This means to me that it is 100% God and 100% me (since I am responsible). The pearl of great price was seen and I forfeited everything for the purchase of the field that contained it. Somehow, I am involved even though everything that was done is of God.
Scripture further implores me to do God’s will. I must be obedient or, in other areas, God’s grace must be sufficient in affecting me in a way that I am compelled and empowered to do His will. One is of God and the other is out of obedience or an act of my will to do or apply, in faith, the principle from what He has said in His word. I believe both acts are part of everything we do; All of God and totally my responsibility.
No one can reach out to God in their dead state; however, I believe God retains our individuality by quickening our dead spirit. After that, we respond and have the capacity, being alive, to respond to His call as if it was our decision all along. That is how I understand it based upon my personal testimony and Gods word. That is all I can use because I just don’t think Scripture has salvation methodology contained in it; a process or formula we perform. Like you said, it is not cooperation. It’s all of God and, then, I believe, at the same time, it’s all of me out of a grace that compels me and drives me to Him. I am not a robot in that I fully and consciously give myself to Him. Our will is most important within the relationship, from the betrothal all the way to heaven. The thing that still overwhelms me is that God chose me and my actions were without personal merit and my acceptance of His gift was a natural response, not something to be counted as worth on my part. I hope that makes sense.
Bruce
Rick, you said,
“I am curious as to why you feel it is necessary for God to micromanage. What necessitates God managing every thought of every human being for all time? Doesn’t it show more sovereignty for God to create a world and say, ‘Play amongst yourselves,’ knowing that he has created a playground where nothing can happen that he doesn’t want to happen, or can’t turn into a lesson, or cannot somehow used for his own glory?”
To me, the word “micromanage” implies direct causation, and I have made it clear that I don’t believe God directly causes evil (e.g., Satan’s first sin). I have also made it clear that I believe that some human decisions are made with libertarian free will, and such freewill decisions are self-determined (self-caused). That being said, details are important. A large ripple effect can ensue from a seemingly small detail. Examples of such ripple effects are plentiful in movies. In the original “Back to the Future” film, for example, Marty was hit by a car instead of his future dad, and his future family began to disappear from his photo from the future. As you say, God does allow us to play among ourselves and exercise our free will, but the free will decisions are made within limits that He has set. Our interaction on this blog is an example. If I had been born in the nineteenth century, we would not be playing together. Every word that we have typed fits into His sovereign will for the universe. The other things that occupied my time today affected the times I posted my responses. For example, I had to pick up my wife at a particular time, and I cooked our supper (baked chicken, green beans, and corn) at a particular time. These small details affected the order of comments in this thread. What we write and what we have written might affect the attitudes and actions of our readers. There might be a large ripple effect. Thus, small details are important.
Brother Bruce,
I think I simply misunderstood your earlier message. I agree with what you have just said my dear brother, you have said the truth beautifully.
Please forgive me for any offense that I may have caused.
Blessings,
Chris
BT,
You said, “A large ripple effect can ensue from a seemingly small detail.”
I am aware of Lorenz’s work and the impact of strange attractors on chaotic systems. That is why I believe initial systems are so important.
Or to view it another way, I do believe that the number of times my kids run in and out he front door on a given day affects the temperature of the house. Even though, to their way of thinking, I’m “freaking out” about constant running in or out, it is not because I fear that the temperature in the house will spin horribly out of control. To be honest, I’m not worried about the temperature in the house very much at all because I have a thermostat. Yes, my feet may feel a chill for a moment when the blast of cold air flies down the hallway, but I don’t worry that it is going to have a permanent or far-reaching effect that the thermostat will not be able to overcome.
Some things have devastating and far-reaching effect. Whether it be Abraham sleeping with Hagar or my daughter with a stuck window in the winter, some things need deeper solutions. But that doesn’t mean things are out of control just because we have to fix the window or the Middle East situation.
I believe God is aware of the details and accounts for the details, but I don’t believe he loses sleep over them. He’s not wringing his hands over the matter hoping it will work out all right. The system is built to self-correct.
The Jews are God’s chosen people. They were going to be a blessing to all men. They could have done it by embracing their Messiah or they could have done it by rejecting their Messiah. They went with the latter. Yes, their actions have ripples of consequences, but here’s the beauty, no matter which way they chose, God is going to get the glory.
rick
Rick,
Therein lies the difference. You state, “[God's] not wringing his hands over the matter hoping it will work out all right. The system is built to self-correct.”
I totally agree with your first statement. God is not worried or challenged by the wickedness of men and angels. He who sits in the heavens laughs…
The second statement is where the friction starts. For a system to self-correct, it must get out of alignment, but God’s plan never gets out of alignment. I believe that Judas’ betrayal was part of God’s plan. I believe that Job’s afflictions were part of God’s plan. Even the lots act in accordance with what God has planned. Like I said earlier, I think part of the confusion comes from mixing God’s sovereign will with God’s moral will.
For some reason we think that we must have absolute control over our decisions for our decisions to be legitimate. But the Bible doesn’t try to defend our “free will” as it relates to God’s sovereign will. A verse that highlights the relationship is this:
The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD (Proverbs 16:1).
Even what we say (and what we type in this blog) is from God.
Rick,
When iron sharpens iron there is a place for offense that does not require apology or forgiveness. Personally, I was honored when you responded. Because I have not spent the time allowed to you and others in the biblical education process I welcome any and all comments, even if they come from my walking on a theory or something similar. Silence is what offends me more than anything. Thank you for your sensitivity and humility. I know my comments may not have completeness to them which create speculation and misunderstanding. Therefore, it is I who should be asking for your forgiveness, not you.
Bruce
Andrew,
I’m not sure how this makes sense. You said:
“The second statement is where the friction starts. For a system to self-correct, it must get out of alignment, but God’s plan never gets out of alignment.”
However, a self-correcting system, by definition, stays in alignment.
Even if my kids open the front door 50 times a day, the temperature stays the same because the thermostat makes the adjustments. The perturbations do not throw the temperature of the house out of whack, so much as they cause the thermostat to kick the furnace on.
Satan’s fall and man’s fall did not cause God’s plans to fall out of whack. His thermostat was in control the whole time. No matter what happens, he is going to get the glory through it all, whether it be by his creatures loving him perfectly and unreservedly as the unfallen angels do or whether it is through redemption of the creature as Jesus’ death accomplishes.
I have heard some preachers proclaim that the fall was a necessity for God to receive His greatest glory. I don’t believe that. I had a professor in Bible college tell us that we gain more in redemption than we lost in the fall. I don’t believe that either. I do not believe that the introduction of evil in any form enhances the good that God has planned. Redemption is a wonderful thing. However, the necessity of it makes salvation a triumph over tragedy. We humans like stories that have a happy ending. God seems to like stories that are happy all the way through.
Let me analogize, if I may. If I have a marital indiscretion, but through conflict and confrontation my wife and I are able to work through it and we discover that her love is sufficient to cover my multitude of sin, this speaks of a great and triumphant affection that she has for me. But would the story not have been much greater and much more blessed had I never committed the indiscretion? The book of Hosea is not a happy story just because it ends with reconciliation. It is a tragedy that God manages to salvage triumphantly.
From analogy to aphorism, let me quote one of my favorite paradoxes: “The optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears the optimist is right.” While I am optimistic about God’s ability to triumph in the end, I am certainly pessimistic enough to believe things could have been better had sin never entered in the first place.
rick
Bruce,
Are you sure you meant to address your post to me? I’ve not been able to keep up with all the threads in this conversation, but I’ve not seen anything directed at me in need of forgiveness. I thought you were going back and fort with Chris.
Or was there a post I missed that you are referring to?
rick
Sorry, Rick. Thanks for waking me up.
Chris,
When iron sharpens iron there is a place for offense that does not require apology or forgiveness. Personally, I was honored when you responded. Because I have not spent the time allowed to you and others in the biblical education process I welcome any and all comments, even if they come from my walking on a theory or something similar. Silence is what offends me more than anything. Thank you for your sensitivity and humility. I know my comments may not have completeness to them which create speculation and misunderstanding. Therefore, it is I who should be asking for your forgiveness, not you.
Bruce
Rick,
It seems there’s a communication gap occuring here. Self-correction implies pervious error. It has to. I can’t correct something that is already in alignment. But the semantics are really a minor issue.
The question before us is this–does God direct and control everything or does He not?
The problem with arguing over hypothetical situations is this: you are arguing based on what man could have done differently. I argue based on what God could have decided to do differently. History could not have played out any differenty unless God had decided it would. Judas couldn’t have decided to not betray Christ unless God had predetermined that Judas would not betray Christ. In which case the current reality would have been entirely different.
But arguing from hypothetical situations doesn’t give us a real picture of reality. We know that Judas betrayed Christ. Regardless of what “could” have occurred differently, the question is, “Did Judas’ betrayal conform to the soverereign will of God?” Even if we don’t know or agree that God is the “direct” cause of an individual event in history, we have to agree that he is the “root” cause of everything in history.
But let’s take it back to Scripture. How do you interpret these passages?
And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place (Acts 17:26).
Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? Why should a living man complain, a man, about the punishment of his sins (Lamentations 3:37-39)?
A man’s steps are from the LORD; how then can man understand his way (Proverbs 20:24)?
Rick, you said,
“Redemption is a wonderful thing. However, the necessity of it makes salvation a triumph over tragedy. We humans like stories that have a happy ending. God seems to like stories that are happy all the way through. . . . I am certainly pessimistic enough to believe things could have been better had sin never entered in the first place.”
I disagree. God’s triumph over evil glorifies Him more than a world where no evil exists. If sin had never entered the world, then there would have been no need for Christ’s atonement for sin on the cross and His resurrection (events which glorify Him). The cross was not a reaction to an unexpected development; rather, the cross was part of God’s sovereign plan from eternity. Notice Acts 2:23 — “This Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (NASB). The cross was part of God’s predetermined plan (Plan A). His predetermined plan included the evil acts that would make the cross necessary, but He never directly caused evil. Heaven is not here on earth. Heaven awaits us in the afterlife. Our lives here on earth include times of trial, and we all sin. We all need a Savior. If God had wanted a story that was happy all the way through, He either would not have created the universe, or He would have created a universe in which all beings would never have the ability to sin. Atheists and agnostics have frequently discussed the “problem of evil” and questioned why a good God would allow evil things to happen. Plantinga’s freewill defense has been used by many Christians. A universe populated with free creatures that can choose evil (some of whom freely choose God’s lordship) glorifies Him more than a universe populated with robots that never have free will (none of which choose evil).
BT,
I’ve mostly been dialoguing with Rick, but I have a few questions for you. I’ve mentioned them before (#33):
“I find it interesting that the Bible doesn’t place a major emphasis on our “free will” or “freedom of choice” in regard to God’s sovereignty. We mistakenly believe that if we are to have true freedom, we must be able to choose Non-A or A, but after the fact, the point is we couldn’t have chosen otherwise. To be really free we must be able to choose sin or holiness. We call that freedom. The Bible calls that slavery (Rom. 6:16-18).
The Bible repeatedly states that sin is slavery. Most of us believe that we can’t sin in heaven. Does that mean that we are more free or less free? I hope you would agree with me that we will be more free.
We should therefore think of our freedom as a “freedom to pursue (what we desire).” We are free to pursue our desires, but that limits us because our desires are easily influenced and ultimately our nature is either sinful or holy. In that sense, when we are with God in heaven, we will have a new nature, with a “freedom to pursue” that which we most desire: Him.”
I don’t think that a libertarian freedom is necessary or warranted from the Biblical text, which becomes clear when we consider heaven. We can’t sin there. Why do we have to have the ability to choose “Non-A” to be truly free if we desire to choose “A?”
Andrew, in heaven we won’t need libertarian free will. In heaven we will have glorified bodies and a perfect environment where no temptation exists. Sin is no longer a possibility. Christians have been confirmed in their new natures from the time of conversion, and they can fall into sin on earth, but they cannot willfully rebel against God and become non-Christians after conversion. (Satan could rebel against God in a perfect environment during a time of probation, but we will not have that ability in heaven.) The time of trial on earth is finished. Christians cannot sin in heaven. In heaven we will be free to do what we are predisposed to do there (i.e., worship God and enjoy Him forever). Thus, to compare freedom in heaven with freedom on earth is comparing apples and oranges.
On earth, libertarian free will is needed. We are born in depravity and do not have libertarian free will. Some people never experience libertarian free will. Pelagianism incorrectly denies depravity. Pelagianism incorrectly says that the human can always make a libertarian freewill choice. A libertarian freewill choice in regard to salvation can only be made when the non-Christian is under the special conviction of the Holy Spirit, a period of time in which depravity is counteracted and a freewill decision can be made from a position of equipoise. The non-Christian is held responsible for that choice, and there are permanent consequences. The decision to ultimately and finally reject Jesus while under special conviction is the unpardonable sin. The decision to surrender one’s life to Jesus in repentance and faith gives the person eternal life that will never be taken away.
An example of equipoise occurs in 1 Kings 18:21 — “Elijah came near to all the people and said, ‘How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.’ But the people did not answer him a word.”
The group mentioned in 1 Kings 18:21 was hesitating between two opinions. They had not yet committed themselves to either God or Baal. A lecturer in Hebrew and Greek studies at the University of Edinburgh, A. Graeme Auld, commented on the passage: “Elijah turns his people’s neutrality or indifference between Yahweh and Baal to his own advantage. They become umpire or jury.”
A. Graeme Auld, “I & II Kings,” The Daily Study Bible (Old Testament), ed. John C.L. Gibson (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1986), 120.
The Hebrew verb “to hesitate” can literally be translated as “to be wobbly,” “to be dislocated,” or “to be limping.” It also is used in 1 Kings 18:26 to describe the limping or dancing of the priests of Baal and in 2 Samuel 4:4 to describe the lameness of Mephibosheth. The word suggests instability, and it indicates that there was not an overriding inclination in either direction even though they were under pressure to make a choice. Thus, the group was in an unstable, neutral, transitional phase (equipoise). Elijah, King Ahab, and the prophets of Baal were already committed one way or the other and thus were not in equipoise.
Elijah told the group to make a decision to follow either God or Baal. God’s power was demonstrated to the uncommitted group, and they formed a bias toward God. In verse 39 they fell on their faces and said, “The LORD, He is God.” Auld discussed the significance of this profession of faith:
“When Yahweh’s power is demonstrated, the people acclaim him not simply as being worthy of being called ‘a god.’ The Hebrew of verse 39 rendered rather more literally than in RSV has them say: ‘Yahweh, he is the god.’ They recognize him now as ‘the [sole] god’—or simply, as RSV has it, as ‘God’ with a capital ‘G.’”
Ibid.
Immediately after they made their public profession of faith, they were asked to seize the prophets of Baal (verse 40). This act of obedience was performed in front of King Ahab and proved that their faith was genuine. They had truly become followers (disciples) of God.
I hope this helps.
BT,
Here are my issues with the argument.
Equipoise is a balanced state, and refers specifically to the factors for and against accepting Christ as our Savior. By definition no decision is possible. There has to be a change in the system for an equipoise to change in favor or in rejection of Christ. If that change is not based on cause, then our decision to follow Christ is definitely not out of love for Him or His decision (predestination). It is just random, in the truest sense of the word.
If we make the decision based on some factor, that factor becomes causal in our decision and we are therefore no longer in equipoise and certainly not exercising libertarian freedom (especially if God introduced that factor with the intention of affecting the outcome). In your comment #73 you even say that, “God’s power was demonstrated to the uncommitted group, and they formed a bias toward God.” The choice was not libertarian because they could not have chosen differently—God acted and they formed a bias, in your words.
The equipoise is not necessitated by the text. For one, the Israelites were not trying to choose between God and Baal, but rather, they were committing idolatry in trying to choose both. Their indecision to choose either did not negate the fact that, up until that point, they had already made a decision. They were not balanced, but quite unbalanced.
Look at it this way: If I choose wickedness, the Holy Spirit convicts me and puts me into“equipoise,” I am still living in rebellion. I am choosing sin unless I am choosing God. There is no “equipoise” because there is no middle ground. You could perhaps argue that Adam and Eve were in equipoise before they ate of the fruit, but the testimony of Scripture saying you “are” or you “aren’t,” it’s “darkness” or it’s “light,” do not fit the thesis.
But even if equipoise were to occur, it wouldn’t negate the fact that when the decision is finally made, it is not libertarian, but predetermined, not contra-causal, but causal. That’s why I prefer to say “freedom to pursue” or “freedom of desire” (see the last italicized paragraph in #72).
Andrew, you are making the same argument that R.C. Sproul made. Notice what he said:
“Probably the most common definition says free will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination or disposition. For the will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no bias. On the surface this is very appealing. There are no elements of coercion, either internal or external, to be found in it. Below the surface, however, lurk two serious problems. On the one hand, if we make our choices strictly from a neutral posture, with no prior inclination, then we make choices for no reason. If we have no reasons for our choices, if our choices are utterly spontaneous, then our choices have no moral significance. If a choice just happens – it just pops out, with no rhyme or reason for it – then it cannot be judged good or bad. When God evaluates our choices, he is concerned about our motives. . . . The second problem this popular view faces is not so much moral as it is rational. If there is no prior inclination, desire, or bent, no prior motivation or reason for a choice, how can a choice even be made? If the will is totally neutral, why would it choose the right or the left? . . . Without motive there would be no choice. . . . Our choices are determined by our desires. . . . The neutral view of free will is impossible. It involves choice without desire. That is like having an effect without a cause. . . . Before we can choose Christ, we must first have a desire for Christ. The sum and substance of the whole debate on predestination rests squarely at this point: Does fallen man, in and of himself, have a natural desire for Christ?”
Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986), 51-61.
Norman Geisler said that such a neutral state (equipoise) was necessary to explain Satan’s sin and prevent God from being the author of sin:
“For the strong (extreme) Calvinists the ultimate question is: Who made the devil do it? Or, more precisely, who caused Lucifer to sin? If free choice is doing what one desires, and if all desires come from God, then it follows logically that God made Lucifer sin against God! But it is contradictory to say that God ever could be against God. . . . Consequently, some less strong Calvinists claim that God does not give any evil desires but only good ones. However, this view has two problems. First, why would God give a desire to do good only to some and not to all? If He is all-loving, then surely He would love all, as the Bible says He does John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). Second, this does not explain where Lucifer got the desire to sin. If it did not come from God, then it must come from himself. But in that case, his original evil act was self-caused, that is, caused by himself – which is exactly the view of human free will the strong Calvinist rejects.”
Norman L. Geisler, Chosen But Free (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 1999), 20-21.
If you look back at Plantinga’s long quote in comment #37, you’ll notice that he differentiates between event causation and agent causation. You and Sproul deny agent causation. Plantinga later points out, however (in a part of the article that I did not quote), that God Himself is an example of agent causation:
“Presumably the determinist means to hold that what he says characterizes actions generally, not just those of human beings. He will hold that it is a necessary truth that if an agent isn’t caused to perform an action then it is a mere matter of chance that the agent in question performs the action in question. From a Christian perspective, however, this is wholly incredible. For God performs actions, and performs free actions; and surely it is not the case that there are causal laws and antecedent conditions outside his control that determine what he does. On the contrary: God is the author of the causal laws that do in fact obtain; indeed, perhaps the best way to think of these causal laws is as records of the ways in which God ordinarily treats the beings he has created. But of course it is not simply a matter of chance that God does what he does-creates and upholds the world, let’s say, and offers redemption and renewal to his children. So a Christian philosopher has an extremely good reason for rejecting this premise, along with the determinism and compatibilism it supports.”
Thus, agent causation must be possible. God is the uncaused Cause of the universe. His sovereign plan for the universe will be accomplished. When human beings have libertarian free will, however, they are able to make self-caused (self-determined) choices that fit into God’s sovereign plan. Agent causation is the only way to explain Satan’s first sin without making God the direct cause (author) of evil.
In regard to the people at Mt. Carmel, you said:
“The choice was not libertarian because they could not have chosen differently—God acted and they formed a bias, in your words.”
They were in equipoise when Elijah asked them how long they would be hesitating between two opinions (in equipoise). I stated, “God’s power was demonstrated to the uncommitted group, and they formed a bias toward God.” They were not forced to choose God from that position of equipoise. They were afraid of Ahab, but they also feared God. They freely chose to commit themselves to Him. Ahab saw the same things that they saw, but he did not commit himself to God. No one was forced to commit themselves to God.
Andrew,
You said, “It seems there’s a communication gap occuring here. Self-correction implies pervious error. It has to. I can’t correct something that is already in alignment. But the semantics are really a minor issue.”
You are correct in that there is a gap occurring. Self-correcting systems, by definition, are not out of alignment as they are designed to handle peturbations and prevent things from getting out of line. For instance, a gyroscopic compass can maintain a constant heading because any influences that might throw it out of alignment are corrected for automatically. It is never out of line itself because it is self-correcting no matter how shaken up the aircraft of ship is by the external environment.
Your body temperature is a self-correcting system that regulates your temperature within a very narrow tolerance. Is your temperature “in error” because it is a self-correcting system?
This is why the difference is not semantic. It is conceptual. I do not believe that history is ever “in error.” I do believe that perturbating influences do act upon it but that it is robust enough to use those influences to self-correct so that it is always on course.
You said, “History could not have played out any differenty unless God had decided it would. Judas couldn’t have decided to not betray Christ unless God had predetermined that Judas would not betray Christ. In which case the current reality would have been entirely different.”
I respectfully disagree. Esther 4 confirms that history could have played out differently. You seem to assume that the current reality is the “right” one, placing God in some awkward situations. We find him giving his people commands and offering up a course of history in which their choices are already pre-determined and they have only the appearance of free will. You have Joshua telling people to choose this day whom they will serve, but it is a lie because God has already ordained that they will make the wrong choice. You have Moses laying out two courses of history in Deuteronomy 28 just before passing away but it is a lie because apparently only one of them was the “right” course of history.
What if BOTH courses of history were the right one? What if God could have gone either way and still accomplished his purpose? What if the people really had a choice? What if God actually said this to them:
15″See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. 16If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 17But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. 19I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, 20loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”
And how do we know that BOTH courses of history were the “right” one?
Deuteronomy 30:
1 “And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you, 2and return to the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, 3then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you.
Hardline Calvinists think that there is only one single course that history could possibly take. They view history as an arrow of time flying in one irrevocable direction.
I am not convinced from my reading of the Bible that this presumption is correct. I believe it is an outgrowth of Enlightenment thinking and an artifact of living in a scientific age which tends to use “scientific thinking” to analyze all problems, including predestination.
rick
Andrew,
I apologize. I did not answer your questions directly in my last post. You asked:
But let’s take it back to Scripture. How do you interpret these passages?
And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place (Acts 17:26).
rp: Simply put, God is in control. He set the initial conditions such that nations rise and fall. This is the course of humanity and it is part of God’s intentions that civilizations come and go. Don’t forget that Paul was speaking to an audience who looked nostalgically back at a “Golden Age” and Elyseum, who had been the rulers of the world but had been supplanted by Rome. This was an interpretation of the current political situation in the world and that God had things under control and did not need to be worshiped with men’s hands as though he needed anything.
Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? Why should a living man complain, a man, about the punishment of his sins (Lamentations 3:37-39)?
In a national situation where the people had asked Jeremiah to cry out the Lord and intercede on their behalf because they were now a nation bereft of a monarchy, bereft of a capital, and even bereft of a center of worship, surrounded by predatory enemies, the Judeans wanted to know, “Why us, Lord?” So Jeremiah told them. You messed up. God set before you two ways and you chose the bad way. As a result these calamities have come upon you. What do you expect? If you had chosen the right way, this would not have happened. Or in Jeremiah’s own words in the preceding verses:
25The LORD is good to those who wait for him,
to the soul who seeks him.
26 It is good that one should wait quietly
for the salvation of the LORD.
27 It is good for a man that he bear
the yoke in his youth.
28Let him sit alone in silence
when it is laid on him;
29 let him put his mouth in the dust—
there may yet be hope;
30 let him give his cheek to the one who strikes,
and let him be filled with insults.
31 For the Lord will not
cast off forever,
32but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion
according to the abundance of his steadfast love;
33 for he does not willingly afflict
or grieve the children of men.
A man’s steps are from the LORD; how then can man understand his way (Proverbs 20:24)?
“Man proposes, God disposes.”
Or
“Don’t brag that today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a city and buy and sell and get gain because you don’t know what tomorrow will bring.”
Rick,
If God has determined exactly how everything will turn out to the tiniest detail, the slightest deviation is an error. A self-correcting system doesn’t fit because God’s will is perfect and there must is nothing to correct. Morally there is plenty to correct, but when we discuss the sovereign will of God, it can’t be changed, even minutely, if God has determined the details.
Also, I see no scriptures anywhere ever excusing God for the evil that befalls man. Ever. In fact I see the Bible telling me that God is capable of bringing joy as well as calamity. As a sovereign God, He has the right to dispose of us, His creatures, as He sees fit, including what choices we make.
Like I said before, we can debate endlessly about hypothetical situations, but when it comes to reality, the way things have actually turned out, we have to decide if it was part of God’s sovereign will or not. Was it God’s will that Judas betray Christ? Was it God’s will that the lot fell on Matthias instead of Joseph?
The situations you keep bringing up are hypothetical. IF the Israelites had decided to follow God… IF Judas hadn’t betrayed Jesus… If… I have no doubt that IF the Israelites had followed God, Moses’ blessings would have fallen on them. History proves that they didn’t. So what are we to make of it?
If you’d like to interact with the Scriptures I have provided, that would be great for debate, but if you prefer not to, I don’t see how this discussion can bear fruit.
BT said:
I disagree (that there could have been a world where redemption was unnecessary). God’s triumph over evil glorifies Him more than a world where no evil exists.
And this is where we will have to agree to disagree. First of all, I cannot believe that a world with sin could ever be a better world than a world where sin never entered. I’ve already used the book of Hosea to make the case that a marriage where reconciliation is never necessary is much to be preferred to one where love and forgiveness are required.
I believe that we lost something very precious in the fall, something we can never get back, something we will never have a chance to experience. And just like Gomer, we can rest confident in the relationship we have with our Lord, but we cannot do it without shame, regret, or recrimination.
As I’ve said before, I’ve heard the arguments that you propose that we gain more in Christ than we lost in the fall and I will be happy to accept it as soon as you can convince my wife how much better our marriage will be if I were to have an affair and she were to forgive me. Until then, I don’t buy the argument because it is not one that plays out anywhere else in human experience. Why, if it were true, I would say, “Let us continue in sin that grace may abound!” but I don’t hear even the strictest Calvinist proposing such a radical notion. If it is good for us who are dead to sin to live no longer in it, how much better would it have been had we never known sin?
BT: “If sin had never entered the world, then there would have been no need for Christ’s atonement for sin on the cross and His resurrection (events which glorify Him).”
RP: I agree wholeheartedly that the crucifixion would have been unnecessary. And what would have transpired would have been far better. Just like we don’t know what would have transpired had Israel never asked for a king, we do know that there never would have been a Saul and that life would have been better following God’s original plan than it was under the monarchy.
The cross was not a reaction to an unexpected development; rather, the cross was part of God’s sovereign plan from eternity. Notice Acts 2:23 — “This Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (NASB). The cross was part of God’s predetermined plan (Plan A).
Exactly. God designed a universe where he could have creatures fellowship with him of their own free will. It was self-correcting to ensure the outcome God intended.
My thermostat holds the temperature at 68 degrees. If the kids never open the door, the thermostat holds the temp at 68 degrees. If they run in and out all day, the thermostat holds the temp at 68 degrees. The temperature in the house is under control.
God will have creatures who freely love him. If they don’t sin, by their own free choice, he has what he created. If they do sin, he sends his Son to redeem them and he has what he created. His predetermined plan was to fulfill the chief end of man, i.e. To love God and enjoy him forever. That is the plan. And no matter what happens, it will work out.
BT: “His predetermined plan included the evil acts that would make the cross necessary, but He never directly caused evil.”
RP: Since I believe God created the initial conditions, I do not have to explain the above paradox you point out. God created the universe to turn out a certain way, regardless of what we do to muck it up. God will succeed. He didn’t have to include the evil acts in his plan. He built a plan that would respond to any evil acts in such a way that his plan would triumph over them.
BT: “Heaven is not here on earth. Heaven awaits us in the afterlife. Our lives here on earth include times of trial, and we all sin. We all need a Savior.”
RP: We do now. Had Adam & Eve done the right thing, things would have been much better.
BT: “If God had wanted a story that was happy all the way through, He either would not have created the universe, or He would have created a universe in which all beings would never have the ability to sin.”
RP: Forgive me, but this is a ridiculous proposition. He did not want a machine. He wanted a creature. Does God want you to be faithful in marriage? Did God want Israel and Judah to remain faithful to him? Or do you want your wife to go out and sleep around so you can demonstrate a redemptive love toward her?
BT: “Atheists and agnostics have frequently discussed the “problem of evil” and questioned why a good God would allow evil things to happen. Plantinga’s freewill defense has been used by many Christians. A universe populated with free creatures that can choose evil (some of whom freely choose God’s lordship) glorifies Him more than a universe populated with robots that never have free will (none of which choose evil).”
RP: And the best of all possible worlds would be a universe of free creatures who all chose God even though they could have chosen evil. That’s the one I’m waiting for.
rick
BT,
I admit that your thoughts on Satan and the origin of sin are interesting, but I am reluctant to believe that humans have libertarian free will because it is possible that Satan had it. To be honest, I’m not sure how Satan sinned without a fallen nature. Perhaps Satan sinning has more to do with Romans 9–that Satan was a vessel “made for dishonorable use”–than it does with libertarian freedom. The Bible merely states that “sin was found in him.” I will look into it further though.
What I do know is that we certainly have a fallen nature now and our decisions have more to do with the current state of our heart than with our “freedom.” Luke 6:45 says, “The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.”
With the passage in 1 Kings, you included Ahab, but according to your theory, he wouldn’t have been in equipoise, since he wasn’t hesitating between two opinions. Either way, I agree that the Israelites were not “forced” to obey/follow God. I think it was a necessity because God had decided that was how it would play out. I think there is a difference between necessity and constraint.
Rick, you said,
“And the best of all possible worlds would be a universe of free creatures who all chose God even though they could have chosen evil. That’s the one I’m waiting for.”
Interestingly, God has always desired that all people choose Him. In 1 Timothy 2:4 we learn that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” In 2 Peter 3:9 we learn that God “is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” (Many five-point Calvinists do not believe that these verses apply to 100% of humans; rather, they believe they apply to all kinds of people or all of the elect.)
The following questions are frequently asked: If God desired that all people choose Him, then why didn’t He create only elect people who would indeed choose Him at some point in their lives? Why did He create any non-elect people?
I don’t think Scripture gives us a full answer to those questions. I have heard speculative answers, but they are not complete, biblically definitive answers. Just as God did not answer all of Job’s questions on earth during and after Job’s suffering, so He is under no obligation to answer all of our questions.
I don’t completely understand God’s plan for the universe, but I believe that what we see unfolding before our eyes is His best plan. To say that a better plan exists than what we see now would imply that God is not omnipotent and/or omniscient.
Andrew, you said,
“To be honest, I’m not sure how Satan sinned without a fallen nature.”
Many commentators interpret Ezekiel 28:15 as referring to Satan: “You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you.” The Hebrew word “tamiym” is used for “blameless,” and it is also used in Ezekiel 43:22-25 to refer to unblemished animals prepared for sacrifice. Thus, it is clear that Satan was created without sin, but sin was later found in him. Who or what caused Satan’s sin? Satan lived in a perfect environment, so his environment could not have caused his sin. There are thus only two choices. Either God directly caused Satan’s sin, or Satan caused his own sin. Satan obviously self-generated a bias toward sin from a position of moral neutrality. Satan’s fall, however, somehow fit into God’s sovereign plan.
Rick,
What you and BT are discussing relates back to my article. One of the reasons I don’t like the term “permissive will” is that it implies that God is not getting his way, which, if that’s the case, “we seriously have to question God’s ability to carry out His purposes or to question His eternal satisfaction with second best. This is a dangerous path to follow and has led some to deny of many of the attributes of God including His omniscience, omnipotence, and omnisapience (being all-wise).
BT, you said, “To say that a better plan exists than what we see now would imply that God is not omnipotent and/or omniscient.”
How does this follow?
What is it about the Bible that indicates this has to be the best of all possible worlds? If anything the Bible is an unending tale of how God has a plan for our best, but we keep mucking it up – The Fall, The Flood, Babel, The Messiah, etc.
Why do you feel that God is obligated to provide us the best of all possible worlds? Where do you find this in scripture that God is compelled to do the best for us?
Andrew,
You will note that initially I lauded the abandonment of bifurcating God’s will.
And don’t forget, what may be second best for us, is not necessarily second best for God. Did Hosea get second best in Gomer or did he get the best? Did he have to settle for what he could get or did he get exactly what he wanted in the end? Just because he could have had something better, had Gomer been faithful, doesn’t mean HE was losing out – just her.
rick
Rick, you asked,
“Where do you find this in scripture that God is compelled to do the best for us?”
Here’s what I said: “I believe that what we see unfolding before our eyes is His best plan. To say that a better plan exists than what we see now would imply that God is not omnipotent and/or omniscient.”
His sovereign plan is the best plan because it glorifies Him (not us) the most.
BT, you said, “I believe that what we see unfolding before our eyes is His best plan. To say that a better plan exists than what we see now would imply that God is not omnipotent and/or omniscient.”
And I ask again, how does this imply that God is not omnipotent and/or omniscient?
The entire arch of scripture is of mankind messing up God’s plan. What is it in scripture that indicates that the plan that will work out will be the best one? What is it in scripture that implies God’s attributes are at stake if this is not the best of all possible worlds?
How is it a better outcome for countless millions to burn for all eternity in a devil’s hell than for them never to have sinned in the first place?
How is it a better outcome for the sinless, spotless, Son of God to experience the most vile that humanity can be rather than to experience a sinless humanity ever grateful for having never fallen into sin?
How is it that Hosea has a better marriage to a whore that he had to buy back from the slave market AFTER he had married her than he would have had to a faithful wife who never slept around?
rick
Rick, notice Proverbs 16:33 — “The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.”
This verse makes it clear that there are no accidents in the universe. John Gill commented on the verse:
“There is no such thing as chance, or events by chance; those events which seem most fortuitous or contingent are all disposed, ordered, and governed, by the sovereign will of God.”
Albert Barnes also commented on the verse:
“Where everything seemed the merest chance, there the faithful Israelite teacher recognized the guidance of a higher will.”
To say that what we see around us is not God’s best plan is to say that someone or something else is in control. The verse above rules out chance. God does not directly cause all events to happen, but He does directly cause some of them to happen. His direct actions in the universe’s time line have large ripple effects. When evil happens, He does not directly cause it, but He does allow it. He could have prevented the evil event from happening. He allows all events to happen (both good and evil); He could have prevented any of them from happening. He could have prevented any freewill decision from happening at a particular point in time by orchestrating circumstances differently, by not creating particular beings, etc. To deny His influence on all events is to deny His omnipotence and omniscience. Thus, we must admit that evil fits into His sovereign plan. To say that what we see around us is not the best plan is to imply that God should have had a better plan and that He should not have allowed events to occur as they have unfolded around us. To say that God should have had a better plan is to deny His goodness and/or His omnipotence and/or His omniscience. I must go to prayer meeting.
I hope this helps.
Rick,
You said, “What is it about the Bible that indicates this has to be the best of all possible worlds? If anything the Bible is an unending tale of how God has a plan for our best, but we keep mucking it up – The Fall, The Flood, Babel, The Messiah, etc.”
I can see how you might view the Bible like that, but I addressed those thoughts in my article:
“It says in Daniel 4:35, “…he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand…” In Job 42:2, speaking to God, Job says, “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.”
I think it is a mistake to describe it as us mucking up God’s plans. If anything, the Bible affirms that God’s plans stand and ours come to ruin.
I’ve much enjoyed this conversation. I’m hoping to use the discussion we’ve had to update the article for a seminary class I’m taking. Thanks to everyone for their input.
In Him,
Andrew
Brother Andrew,
The Perfect will of God seems to corroborate the perfect time of God as well. One of the great doctrines of scripture is the “right” time of Christ in the world. The Hebrew writer makes it clear that Christ appeared at the precise time…..not an existential other or another world that is not this one in time. I heard some years ago at an ETS meeting in San Diego a theologian exploring the concept of time in order to substantiate the counterfactual position. Some will go to great lengths to undo the course of time and intercept it with what they may imply as God’s knowledge of multiple worlds. The Hebrew writer does not allow for such nonsense.
When Luke and the Apostle Paul were speaking of this perfect time, they were certainly in complete agreement with the Hebrew Writer.
Luke 1:26-31 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, (27) to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. (28) And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” (29) But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. (30) The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. (31) “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
Hebrew 4:7 He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS.”
Hebrews 10:11-14 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; (12) but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, (13) waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. (14) For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
Romans 5:6-8 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. (7) For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. (8) But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Luke most of all gives us the greatest and exact sense of perfect time and perfect will as the Gabriel is sent to Mary with specific news at a specific time in His perfect will.
Let us know how your course work goes on this….that would be interesting.
Blessings,
Chris
I haven’t discussed God’s omnipresence yet, but I think this characteristic of God is also relevant to our discussion of His sovereign will. I’ll use some extreme examples to make a point.
Today at least one woman will be raped at some place on the face of the earth. God will be there. He hates sin, so of course He hates the horrible sin of rape. Yet, He will allow the rape to occur. He has always known it would occur. He could have prevented it in advance by not allowing the rapist to be born. He will be a bystander watching the rape occur. If you or I were bystanders having the power to stop the rape and yet did nothing to stop it, then we would be guilty of sin. Yet, God is not guilty of sin even though He has the power to stop it and does nothing to stop it. Why is God not guilty of sin? Here’s the reason. God knows that the woman’s rape somehow fits into His sovereign plan and that a greater good will occur later as a result of that rape. Remember what Joseph said: “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive” (Genesis 50:20, NASB). With His counterfactual knowledge, He knows that if He were to prevent the rape, the greater good would not occur later. Without His counterfactual knowledge, He would not know what the ripple effect would be if He prevented the rape. Because we do not have counterfactual knowledge, we would be guilty of sin if we were mere bystanders and did nothing in the same situation. What is the greater good that will eventually come as a result of the rape? We don’t know, but God does. Perhaps the victim will become a key advocate for rape victims. Perhaps the victim will receive loving ministry from a Christian organization and become a Christian herself. Perhaps the perpetrator will be imprisoned and will be prevented from murdering someone. We can only speculate about the greater good coming down the road of time. God, however, does not speculate. He knows exactly what would happen under non-actual circumstances.
I could also use the scenario of Hitler’s concentration camps. God was there, and He watched the holocaust occur. He was at the ovens. He hated it. It was a horrible sin. He has always known it would happen. He did not have to allow the creation of Hitler, etc. He could have prevented the holocaust, but He didn’t prevent it. He knew that somehow the holocaust fit into His sovereign plan for the universe. He knew that a greater good would occur later as a result of the holocaust. If you or I had lived at that time and had the power to stop it, it would have been a sin for us not to stop it. It was not, however, a sin for God to allow the holocaust to happen. With His counterfactual knowledge, He knew that if He prevented the holocaust from happening, a ripple effect would have occurred that would have prevented the greater good that would be seen at a later point in time.
God is a bystander at every event in the universe. Every event fits into His sovereign will. He is omnipresent. Thus, you see the need for God’s counterfactual knowledge. It is a facet of His omniscience.
Ultimately God is glorified through righteousness. Through Christ we recieve forgiveness and His righteousness is imputed to us. Others are judged for their sin and God’s righteousness is shown by judgment.
Brother BT,
You said,
“With His counterfactual knowledge, He knows that if He were to prevent the rape, the greater good would not occur later. Without His counterfactual knowledge, He would not know what the ripple effect would be if He prevented the rape.”
God has never said He is in the position you posit. He knows the beginning from the end. He is timeless. God knows…there is no such thing as something God would not know.
I think the greater question here goes back to your use of equipoise. That position is typically addressed and refuted more biblically by a great many theologians framed as compatibalistic determination. Adam was not necessarily in the state of equipoise, nor are we…. both Adam and we are inclined at the will. Adam was inclined to God,…we are inclined to sin (our Father Satan). Our inclination changes,…not by our power, but by the power of the Holy Spirit. By volition we exercise the new life born of God. As a new creation we do cry Abba Father! In other words, we do really believe. Our inclination has changed, but not by our power,…it is by Christ alone, and known before the foundation of the world.
Blessings,
Chris
BT,
You said, “Today at least one woman will be raped at some place on the face of the earth. God will be there. He hates sin, so of course He hates the horrible sin of rape. Yet, He will allow the rape to occur. He has always known it would occur. He could have prevented it in advance by not allowing the rapist to be born. He will be a bystander watching the rape occur. If you or I were bystanders having the power to stop the rape and yet did nothing to stop it, then we would be guilty of sin. Yet, God is not guilty of sin even though He has the power to stop it and does nothing to stop it. Why is God not guilty of sin? Here’s the reason. God knows that the woman’s rape somehow fits into His sovereign plan and that a greater good will occur later as a result of that rape.”
You have hit on one of the reasons I no longer call myself a Calvinist or at least a Supralapsarian. For God to tell us in James that if we know to do good and don’t do it, that is a sin, and then turn around and not do the good thing of saving every man, woman, and child from an eternal torment when he has an occasion to do so but merely chooses not to makes Him a hypocrite and I cannot accept that God would not command us to do something that He was not willing to do himself.
You said that God’s omnipresence requires counterfactual knowledge. This is only a requirement if you have a fully deterministic system. This is a good argument for why I cannot and will not believe in determinism as it makes God a bystander to evil and allows it to take place for a “greater good.”
First of all, evil, for the victim is still evil and it is hard for me to understand how a “greater good” justifies it. Are you suggesting that the “greater good” of Job’s deeper relationship with God justified the violent death of all his children and slaves? Seems monstrous to me that God would hold human life in such disregard as to throw it away on a wager because Satan offered a double-dog dare that Job would blow it.
Second, it contradicts Paul who asked if we should continue in sin that grace might abound? He said such reasoning is carnal. Doing evil in order to achieve a greater good is still doing evil and God doesn’t seem to be one where the ends justify the means.
Finally, such a construct is only necessary in a deterministic system. In a system where God has free agents acting in response to initial conditions, He is not culpable for the evil, nor is he a party to it, nor does he condone it, nor is he guilty for not intervening.
If I tell my feed the goldfish or it will die and they have all the materials at their disposal to do so along with ample time and opportunity, am I to be blamed if their goldfish dies just because I told them what the consequences would be if they didn’t do what I told them?
rick
Rick, you said,
“This is a good argument for why I cannot and will not believe in determinism as it makes God a bystander to evil and allows it to take place for a ‘greater good.’”
I’ve made it clear that I don’t believe in determinism. You may want to read again comment #37. I agree with what Plantinga said about determinism in that comment. In the second part of the sentence above, you indicated that you don’t believe that God is a bystander to evil, allowing it to take place for a “greater good.” You may want to clarify what you are saying there. If God is omnipresent, then He is obviously a bystander to evil. He is present for every event, whether the event is good or evil. Also, God obviously allows evil events to take place. The only good reason for allowing an evil event to take place is so that a “greater good” will take place. The cross is an example of that truth. The sinless Jesus was nailed to a cross by sinners, but the cross provided a “greater good” (atonement). Again, remember what Joseph said about the “greater good” following the evil actions of his brothers: ““You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive” (Genesis 50:20, NASB).
Rick,
Your argument against God’s sovereignty is built on humanistic philosophy and not on the Word.
There are specific verses in Job which ultimately ascribe the terrible things that happened to Job to God. Job ascribes it all to God, not even making mention of Satan, and then the text says, “throughout all this Job did not sin or blame God” (Job 1:22). You should also look at Job 42:11.
Also, you argue that if God sovereignly laid out every single detail of history, then He is guilty for not “doing good” by preventing rape. Yet even if God had given us all libertarian freedom, wouldn’t He still be guilty for not interfering? God has made Himself manifest throughout history, interfering with man’s “free will” to prevent sin and promote good. Your argument falls apart because God would still be guilty by your definitions.
Chris, you said,
“There is no such thing as something God would not know.”
You have just acknowledged counterfactual knowledge. David asked God what would happen if Saul came to Keilah (1 Samuel 23:11), and God answered Him (1 Samuel 23:12) not with speculation; rather He answered David with exact knowledge of what would happen if Saul came to Keilah while David was there (a non-actual event). Saul actually did not come to Keilah. I agree with your sentence above. There is no such thing as something God would not know, and that includes counterfactuals.
You also said,
“That position is typically addressed and refuted more biblically by a great many theologians framed as compatibalistic determination. Adam was not necessarily in the state of equipoise, nor are we…. both Adam and we are inclined at the will. Adam was inclined to God,…we are inclined to sin (our Father Satan).”
I sense that you are a five-point Calvinist. The famous five-point Calvinist Arthur Pink (1886-1952), who wrote articles in the monthly magazine “Studies in the Scriptures,” said that Adam was in equipoise before his first sin:
“In unfallen Adam the will was free, free in both directions, free toward good and free toward evil. Adam was created in a state of innocency, but not in a state of holiness, as is so often assumed and asserted. Adam’s will was therefore in a condition of moral equipoise: that is to say, in Adam there was no constraining bias in him toward either good or evil, and as such, Adam differed radically from all his descendants, as well as from ‘the Man Christ Jesus.’”
Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God, 1930 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2002), 134-135.
Surely, you respect Arthur Pink. The concept of equipoise is not a new one. You said that Adam was inclined at the will. . . toward God. If he was inclined toward the good, then why would he willfully sin? (Both the OT and the NT distinguish between willful and unintentional sins.) If Adam did not cause his own sin, then someone directly caused him to sin. Was it God or Satan? If God directly caused Adam to sin, then God is the author of sin (an unthinkable position). If Satan caused Adam to sin, then why was Adam held responsible for his sin? Also, why did Satan commit his first sin? He was in a perfect environment. No one tempted him. He was not created with a depraved nature. Either God directly caused Satan to sin (which would make God the author of sin), or Satan caused his own sin (agent causation, which Plantinga described in comment #75). Surely you see the necessity of libertarian free will in regard to Adam and Satan.
You also said,
“Our inclination changes,…not by our power, but by the power of the Holy Spirit.”
Supernatural power is indeed needed to counteract depravity before non-Christians are capable of surrendering their lives to Christ. A five-point Calvinist typically says that regeneration is what counteracts depravity, and he also says that faith/repentance chronologically or logically follows regeneration. My position is that the special conviction of the Holy Spirit counteracts depravity for a period of time and places the non-Christian in equipoise so that he can make a libertarian freewill decision to accept or reject Christ as Savior and Lord. In my opinion, faith/repentance precedes regeneration in logical order. Interestingly, this was the position of the 1925 BF&M: “Regeneration or the new birth is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit, whereby we become partakers of the divine nature and a holy disposition is given, leading to the love and practice of righteousness. It is a work of God’s free grace conditioned upon faith in Christ and made manifest by the fruit which we bring forth to the glory of God.” We will probably not agree on the ordo salutis, but it makes for an interesting conversation.
I thought you might come back with that….
I have to run out to deliver a bicycle to one of our members that walks to church….I’ll be right back and try to explain the differences in inclination.
This is fun stuff…
Blessings,
Chris
Brother BT,
In the beginning…Adam was inclined toward God, yet was able to follow the influence of the serpent as well (obvious from the reading of Genesis). He was not in the state of equipoise (or indifference), Adam’s inclination was toward God in creation, although mutable. The biblical truth is that God is only allowed freedom of the will or free will. Created humans and angels are mutable, second order, where God is immutable, first order.
On the other hand with respect to second order….Humans are volitional (choosing, reasoning, powering the will) as they live out their inclination. In the beginning, Adam and Eve, made in God’s image, were inclined to follow God. Satan introduced a question for consideration and they were deceived, and became dead in sin and trespasses. All men and women in Adam are in sin. Everyone is inclined to sin toward Satan, and held by their Father Satan without hope. Men and women, who are dead in sin, do not have a mind/heart inclined to love God, …instead they love and are bound by their Father Satan.
Glory to God…Christ brings freedom to the adopted of the Father,….. as we see in time, bringing His adopted children to life (all those in Christ before the foundation of the world). The child of God is free and inclined to believe, choose, and follow Christ. The volitional man/woman is not inclined to follow Christ until the Holy Spirit brings life. Some may call this free will, some may not…. but there is a distinction in theology concerning the term “free will” and “volition”. I believe the scriptures teach man has always been volitional. At one time inclined to God…. After sin…..all (in Adam / federal head) deathly bound and inclined to Satan (hopelessly in sin); until the Holy Spirit breaks the power of sin (Lamb slain before the foundation of the world) and rescues the sinner, whereby the adopted child is inclined to His savior and is willing to cry Abba Father.
“Free will” may be better understood as an overstatement of the created; or second order. Because the second order certainly does choose, reason and act on the will, volitionally.
Blessings,
Chris
John 8:36 “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Maybe it’s just me, but this seems like a distinction without a difference. How can we be volitional but not have a free will?
When I think of a “free” will it is uncoerced, not compelled to act contrary to its intentions. This is why Romans 7 exists because Paul denotes a bondage to sin. The will is present to do good, but the flesh is weak to perform that. It is only through the delivery from the body of this death that he is able to bring volition to fruition.
At least that’s how it looks to me. Maybe you can clarify the difference for me.
rick
Chris, let’s look at some biblical texts about Adam.
Many folks try to use Ecclesiastes 7:29 as a proof text to show that Adam was inclined toward God before his fall: “Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices” (NASB). The Hebrew word translated as “men” in this verse is “adam,” a word which can be a proper noun referring to the first man, a general term for a human being, or a term for a male as in Ecclesiastes 7:28b: “I have found one man among a thousand.” This Hebrew word does not have a plural form, and thus we find the word “adam” referring to men in Genesis 6:1: “Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them. . .” In Ecclesiastes 7:29, because Adam’s descendants were not born upright, the word “adam” appears to refer to the first man (or Adam and Eve due to the plural “they” in the second part of the verse).
Also of interest in Ecclesiastes 7:29 is the Hebrew adjective “yashar” which is translated as “upright.” The word can mean “morally good.” The word is also translated as “upright” in Proverbs 28:10 — “He who leads the upright astray in an evil way will himself fall into his own pit, but the blameless will inherit good.” Thus, the upright man can be led astray, as Adam was led astray. As you say, he was in a mutable condition, certainly not permanently inclined toward God. We agree, I think, that Christians are permanently inclined toward God. We can stumble into sin, of course, but we will not lose our salvation.
In Micah 7:2, Micah said there was no upright (“yashar”) person left in his land. In Micah 7:4, he described some men as being upright (“yashar”) in outward appearance but not inclined toward good: “The best of them is like a briar, the most upright like a thorn hedge. The day when you post your watchmen, Your punishment will come. Then their confusion will occur.” This verse proves that Adam could have been upright in some sense and yet not inclined toward good. Kenneth Barker served as an OT professor at three seminaries. He commented on Micah 7:4:
“Even the best and most upright (see v. 2) of the corrupt leaders referred to in v. 3 are as harmful as briers and thorn hedges, which ensnare, wound, and tear their victims.”
Barker, “Micah,” in vol. 20 of The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 123.
Notice Judges 17:6 — “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.”
The word for “right” in Judges 17:6 is “yashar.” Thus, here it does not mean “inclined toward good”; rather, it simply means “good” or “right.”
Adam was morally good (“yashar”) before the fall because he had not yet sinned, but he was not inclined toward good behavior before the fall. If Adam had been inclined toward good behavior before committing his first sin, then it is difficult to believe that he could have formed a bias toward sin. If he was in equipoise before committing his first sin, it is much easier to believe that he could have formed a bias toward sin. In other words, if he was 100 percent inclined toward good and zero percent inclined toward evil, he would have been unlikely to sin. Conversely, if he was in a 50-50 mode or a zero-zero mode, he would have been more likely to self-determine his first sin. Adam was good in the same sense that the trees and animals created by God were described as “very good” in Genesis 1:31, but neither Adam nor the trees and animals were inclined toward good moral behavior.
We probably should deal with Genesis 1:26 — “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” “Image” and “likeness” are also found together in Genesis 5:3 in reference to Seth being in the image and likeness of Adam. Thus, because the image and likeness in 5:3 does not refer to an inclination toward good (Seth was born in depravity), the image and likeness in 1:26 does not have to refer to an inclination toward good.
P.S.: It could be argued that the image and likeness passed on to Seth from Adam involved a complete inclination toward evil (total depravity). A verse that could be used in this context is 1 Corinthians 15:49 — “Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.” I would argue, however, that the image passed on to Seth referred to mainly to God’s image, even though marred. Notice 1 Corinthians 11:7:
“For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.”
Albert Barnes commented on the verse:
“The phrase ‘the image of God’ refers to the fact that man was made in the likeness of his Maker Gen 1:27; and proves that, though fallen, there is a sense in which he is still the image of God. It is not because man is truly or pure, and thus resembles his Creator; but it evidently is because he was invested by his Maker with authority and dominion; he was superior to all other creatures; Gen 1:28. This is still retained; and this the apostle evidently refers to in the passage before us, and this he says should be recognized and regarded.”
Colossians 3:10 indicates that the image involved a knowledge of God: “And have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him.”
Lastly, notice 2 Corinthians 3:18 — “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.”
Christians are inclined toward God from the moment of conversion, so if the “image” is about inclination, then they are 100% inclined toward God and fully in His image at conversion. They can fall into sin, but they cannot lose their salvation. They will not willfully rebel against God and remove themselves from His hand. Verse 18, however, indicates that the image of God is restored in a gradual sense. The present tense (are being transformed) indicates an ongoing process of spiritual change “into the same image.” Thus, this process of becoming the “image” is about spiritual growth and growing knowledge of the Lord.
BT,
Interesting, but highly speculative. Is it a characteristic of “good” to be morally arbitrary for such creatures that are capable of morality? Clearly Adam was inclined toward good, if for nothing else, because there was no evil in the world. I’m not seeing how arbitrariness is a necessary reading from the passages we’ve looked at. It seems that this passage indicates a change of inclination, not a sinful inclination, followed by equipoise, followed by a righteous inclination:
We too all previously lived among them in our fleshly desires, carrying out the inclinations of our flesh and thoughts, and by nature we were children under wrath, as the others were also. But God, who is abundant in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, made us alive with the Messiah even though we were dead in trespasses. By grace you are saved! (Eph. 2:3-5, HCSB)
Also, when Seth was born in Adam’s image and likeness, he would necessarily have been inclined toward evil because Adam’s image and likeness was already inclined that way by that time since the fall had already taken place.
Rick, I agree with you that Seth was inclined toward evil. That’s what total depravity is all about. Total depravity has been passed on in some way to all subsequent generations (at some time we maybe should discuss traducianism), but so has God’s image been passed on (even though marred after Adam’s sin), according to 1 Corinthians 11:7.
You said,
“Is it a characteristic of ‘good’ to be morally arbitrary for such creatures that are capable of morality? Clearly Adam was inclined toward good, if for nothing else, because there was no evil in the world.”
Remember, however, that the plants and animals were created “good” in the sense of being unblemished, but they were also adversely affected by Adam’s sin. Nature was disrupted as the earth was cursed by God (Gen. 3:17). Both nature and Adam were no longer unblemished.
In regard to Ephesians 2:3-5, I think the passage shows a progression from depravity (inclined toward evil) to life in Christ. He did make us alive when we were spiritually dead. That transformation is regeneration. I would argue that first comes repentance/faith and then regeneration (the instant transformation of us into living children of God). I think John 1:12 teaches this order: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.”
Oops, comment #106 was to Andrew, not Rick.
Back in the late 1970′s a pastor did a good job summarizing compatibalistic determinism in this way…. (W.E.Best)
“Adam’s original uprightness was self-determined but not self-originated. His fall however, was both self-determined and self-originated. The doctrine of concurrence–cooperation–cannot be connected with Adam’s sin or his fall. God is the author of neither Adam’s sin nor his fall.
The first existence of a virtue could not have come from man, for God is the original cause of all things. However, God uses second causes. Adam, the second cause, was created in a state of mutable self-determination, which allowed the possibility of his fall. And he did fall when he went from an inclination toward God to a selfish, ego-centered inclination. Sinful inclination is the [fallen] creature’s product and activity.
Mutable Adam, unlike his immutable Creator, could and did lose his uprightness. Adam was able to persevere in his holy self-determination, but he was able also to begin a sinful self-determination. His self-determination was to an ultimate end and not to a choice of means to an end.
Inclination differs from volition as the end differs from the means. Adam fell in his heart [mind] before he ate the forbidden fruit. Eve, the weaker vessel, was deceived but Adam was not. He was self-determined; that is, he desired to eat that he might be with his wife. The inclination preceded his choice. Eve also had sinned in her heart [mind] before she sinned externally.
It is not the committing of a sin that makes one a sinner. He is already a sinner before the act is committed. The Lord Jesus Christ identified sin as that which proceeds from the heart [mind]: “…whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). The desire that precedes the volition is sin.
Eating the forbidden fruit did not originate Adam’s inclination, but it did manifest it. His will inclined to an end, and he chose the means to accomplish the end result. The will chooses because it is already inclined.
This is the reason there is no compatibility between the social gospel and the gospel presented in the Word of God. Those who proclaim a social gospel contend that men are not responsible for their acts of sin. They attribute sin to environmental or social conditions, which relieves sinners of their responsibility in committing sin. But this is nonsense. Sin cannot be attributed to another person or thing. Adam blamed Eve for his sin, and subtly put the blame on God Himself, who had given him Eve. But Adam’s rationalization did not alter the facts. He had sinned responsibly. He had gone from inclination toward God to inclination to satisfy his own evil desire.
Adam’s sinful determination originated within himself. God did not cooperate in Adam’s evil self-determination. He created Adam a free person. Arminians maintain that a man cannot act freely unless he has the ability to cancel his act. This is not valid, however. If a man jumps from a building to commit suicide, even though he may change his mind on the way down, he cannot return to the top of the building. His self-determination is a free act, but he cannot reverse the act. In this same way, once Adam sinned he could not return to his original state. He fell-body, soul, and spirit.”
………………………
I am not sure about all of what Pastor Best believes and I would probably try to articulate things a bit different that he does here, but his explanation of how volition is different in those who are free persons seemed pretty easy to follow.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Rick,
What I have posted above should bring chapter 7 of Romans into clear focus,..at least in the way I understand it. The Apostle Paul was inclined to God through this new life in Christ at the point he was writing to us in chapter 7. Some would argue he is discussing a lost man as he describes himself in 7. Of course, I believe that he is simply describing the struggle of an individual that is inclined to God, by the power of the Holy Spirit,…being set free and renewed day to day (being sanctified),…yet struggling as a sinner in this world until the day of glorification.
We are free people, willing to make acts toward God (worship, kissing toward the face of God), because our inclination is now set by the Spirit so that we volitionally choose, react and command our mind and bodies in His direction through the renewing of the Spirit (James). Not perfectly now….as we struggle as sinners. But someday, glorified as our Savior is now.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, I agree with some but not all of what W.E. Best said in the quote you gave above. I’ll comment on a few of his statements:
1. “Arminians maintain that a man cannot act freely unless he has the ability to cancel his act. This is not valid, however. If a man jumps from a building to commit suicide, even though he may change his mind on the way down, he cannot return to the top of the building. His self-determination is a free act, but he cannot reverse the act. In this same way, once Adam sinned he could not return to his original state. He fell-body, soul, and spirit.”
I regard myself as neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, so I think I can be fairly objective here. I have never heard Arminians say that a man cannot act freely unless he has the ability to cancel the act after the act occurs (e.g., after jumping off a building). Arminians do believe that a man with libertarian free will has the power of contrary choice (e.g., he can decide either to jump or not jump off a building).
2. “His fall however, was both self-determined and self-originated.”
He comes close to endorsing libertarian free will for Adam here. He included agent causation (self-originated, self-determined decision), but he later excluded equipoise by saying that Adam was inclined toward God prior to his fall.
3. “Adam’s sinful determination originated within himself. God did not cooperate in Adam’s evil self-determination. He created Adam a free person.”
If Adam had an inclination toward God, was he free to sin? If an unregenerated adult has an inclination toward sin, is he free to surrender his life to Christ? The two questions are parallel. I think that you would agree with me that we are born as totally depraved creatures. We are born with an inclination toward sin. We are not free to surrender ourselves to God from the time of birth (contrary to what Pelagius said). You and I agree that human depravity (the inclination to sin) must be supernaturally counteracted before non-Christians can surrender their lives to Christ in repentance and faith. You believe that regeneration is the counteracting force. I believe that the special conviction of the Holy Spirit is the counteracting force. Either way, we agree that the non-Christian, who is inclined toward sin, is not free (in the libertarian sense) before the inclination is counteracted. The inclination prevents libertarian freedom. Similarly, Adam was not free to willfully rebel against God if he was inclined toward God. If Adam had had such an inclination prior to his fall, then a supernatural force would have been needed to counteract that inclination and place him in equipoise so that he could make a free choice. The Bible simply indicates, however, that Adam was in an unblemished state of goodness (never having sinned), and I don’t see any evidence that he was inclined toward God prior to his fall.
I’d just like to highlight a few of the things that I’ve learned from this comment stream.
1) The origin of sin is difficult to deal with. The Bible doesn’t seem to place much of an importance on explaining the orgination of Satan’s sin, other than that he grew haughty and prideful, that “sin was found in him.” Speculation abounds, and we may never fully know other than that we know it was part of God’s plan from eternity past and will ultimately result in glorifying God (through God’s judgment and Satan’s eternal punishment).
2) The Bible places great importance on explaining the origination of our redemption through the death and resurrection of Christ. Though we may never fully understand all of what God did for us on the cross, the Bible gives us much more information on that topic. We know it was part of God’s plan from eternity past and will ultimately result in glorifying God (through God’s forgiveness and our eternal praise). Maybe I should write about that next.
Brother BT,
Yes we are singing from the same page…. when you said
“You and I agree that human depravity (the inclination to sin) must be supernaturally counteracted before non-Christians can surrender their lives to Christ in repentance and faith.”
And we do really believe. What a wonderful privilege!
Adam’s inclination is an interesting topic….maybe we can explore this in the future.
Blessings my friend,
Chris
Chris, blessings to you.
Andrew, best wishes to you in seminary. Enjoy this time of getting your cup filled in various classes.
Rick, I enjoyed our discussions, and I enjoyed my visit to your website.