Banner
Freedom? What Freedom? PDF Print E-mail
Theology - Brief Notes on Jet Fuel Calvinism
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Tuesday, 04 April 2006 08:42

Most Christians do not have a problem in acknowledging God’s sovereign control over every aspect of the physical creation. Not a sparrow falls to the ground apart from the Father, and He know the numbers of atoms that make up the planet Jupiter. We will consequently spend our time here considering the two areas that give us the most problems on this topic. Does God control the free actions of human beings, and does God control sinful actions? The biblical answer to both questions is yes.

First, God controls free actions, which is what makes them free."‘But Micaiah said, "If you ever return in peace, the LORD has not spoken by me.’ And he said, ‘Take heed, all you people!’ Now a certain man drew a bow at random, and struck the king of Israel between the joints of his armor. So he said to the driver of his chariot, ‘Turn around and take me out of the battle, for I am wounded’ (1 Kings 22:28,34). In this situation, God had said that something would occur. He then used the random act of an unknown archer to accomplish His purpose for Ahab. There is no indication in the text anywhere that would lead us to think that God "overrode" the actions of that archer in such a way as to make him wonder why he couldn't remember that particular five minutes in the battle.

"Since his days are determined, the number of his months is with You; You have appointed his limits, so that he cannot pass" (Job 14:5). Until the time comes which God has established, every man is immortal. As far as God’s determination is concerned, we cannot lengthen and we cannot shorten our lives. Humanly speaking, can we? Of course. We can smoke lots of unfiltered Camels. We can bungee-jump with frayed cords. But whatever we do will not alter God’s decree—whatever we do will already have been His instrument for accomplishing His decree. We have the same teaching in Ps. 139:16 in different words. Before we existed, our biography was written.

"The preparations of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD" (Prov. 16:1). What is more indicative of a man’s freedom than that which he wills to speak? When you ask me a question, I answer you the way I wish. Is God somewhere else? No. Now the reason we have a problem with God’s control of free actions is that we do not want to say that men are nothing more than puppets. But the assumption of "puppetry" is a false inference. When one creature acts on another creature, his use of freedom displaces the freedom of the one he is acting on. When Hamlet kills Claudius, the freedom of Hamlet removes the freedom of Claudius. But when Shakespeare acts on Hamlet, this does not remove Hamlet's freedom, it rather creates it. In other words, the actions of Shakespeare on the characters does not have the same effect that the actions of one character have on another character. In the same way, the relation of God's will to my actions is not a relation that is bound by the rules of the universe because it is the relationship of the Creator of that universe with a creature within it. I cannot displace someone else's choices, and leave him in full possession of those choices at the same time. To try to explain it would be to try to explain a contradiction. But the error that is made when this is assumed to be true of God's relationship with us is the error of making God tiny, as though He were simply the biggest subset within the universe. But He is not.

There is another stumbling block -- which is God's control of sinful actions. Our God, a most holy God, controls wicked and sinful deeds without being or becoming wicked or sinful Himself. Those who think this is a problem maintain that this position makes God sinful, or somehow the author of sin. First, the teaching of Scripture:

"But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive" (Gen. 50:20; see also Is. 45:7 and Amos 3:6).

"Jesus said to him, ‘Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times’" (Mark 14:30).

"And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" (Luke 22:22).

"For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done (Acts 4:27-28).

"Yeah, but . . ." We must always remember that the objections which crowd into our minds at this point are not textual objections—they are philosophical. Nowhere does the Bible say, "Thus says the Lord, ‘Do not think or say in your hearts that the Lord God in any way controls the behavior of the wicked, for I, the Lord your God, am a holy God’" (Hez. 8:2).

We must learn what real, creaturely freedom means. In Matthew 12:33-37, Jesus teaches two fundamental truths about choices. The first is that choices are determined by nature. This is why horses never eat bacon. The second is that this principle is fully consistent with exhaustive responsibility for what we say and do. The will is that which reaches into our hearts and brings out the strongest desire we have, in order to act upon it.

Given our creaturely freedom, we are free in Baskins & Robbins to choose whatever flavor we desire. There is no coercion. How this freedom is reconciled with the exhaustive sovereignty of God is a question we cannot answer. The Bible simply tells us that we are free in this sense, and that God controls every detail of history. Man as a creature has creaturely freedom, but the Scriptures never show us how to "do the math" on this. We cannot explain it, anymore than we can explain how God created ex nihilo, or how the Logos of God became a true man without ceasing to be fully divine. If we knew how to explain such things, we would be a whole lot smarter than we are.

But moral freedom is another thing altogether. Consider the teaching of Romans 6:6-7 and 1 Corinthians 1:18-25. In this case, there is nothing to explain. What freedom? The Bible teaches that we are slaves to sin, and the most marked feature of slavery is that it takes away freedom. What this amounts to is the fact that man as sinner is not free at all. The place where we most want "free will" is the one place where it is excluded in Scripture. Where Scripture has spoken, we must bow down. And if our hidden idol, tucked away in some alcove of the heart, forbids it, then we must topple that idol.



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Tuesday, 04 April 2006 08:42
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Tuesday, April 04, 2006 9:19 am
A bigger philosophical struggle for me is not how God pulls this off as why He does, and not so much re controlling the sinful behavior of the wicked as re controlling the sinful behavior of the saints, and not so much the saints in general as me in particular (because it's all about me). The process of sanctification is just too slow. If I hate my besetting sin, and He hates my besetting sin, and pretty much everybody else who knows about it hates my besetting sin, then what could possibly be the point? The answer, of course, is "You can't make a hippopotamus, so shut up." Unfortunately, one of my besetting sins is that I never do.
Rob Steele  Tuesday, April 04, 2006 11:00 am
Very funny V. K. Romans 9 says shut up too (Who are you, O Man ...) but also adds the What ifs. The key to understanding seems to be to translate "What if ..." as "Because ...". Ultimately of course we're thrown back on faith. Does God know what He's doing? Is He competant? Then shut up!


Kidding. The right response is probably to sing.

John Barry  Tuesday, April 04, 2006 12:29 pm
Douglas, You say that God controls free actions and sinful actions. I wonder what you mean by "controls". Also, the objections that crowd into my mind when I read your comments above are *both* textual and philosophical. You seem to build your doctrine of "exhaustive sovereignty" primarily on narrative passages of scripture. Is this wise? You fail to refer to verses such as Isaiah 54:15 in supporting your exhaustive sovereignty theory. In short, I don't see your flavor of God's sovereignty in the Bible at all. It strikes me as a philosophical notion of man's devising. In the Bible, the essence of sovereignty--whether God's or man's--is not meticulous control. Rather, it is the carrying out of justice. Cordially,
John Barry  Tuesday, April 04, 2006 12:44 pm
Valerie, Is not our bondage to the Lord and to righteousness as believers just as binding as was our bondage to sin before we believed? If I truly believe that I am a slave of God, then I will act like one. The good news is, "God's divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature." "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. If I believe that God is somehow ordaining or decreeing my sin, I will likely continue in it. And in time, I will likely make light of sin.
jeff z  Tuesday, April 04, 2006 2:01 pm
John,
A narrative passage has just as much validity to teach doctrine as anything else, particularly when the narrative is explicit. Jesus taught primarily in narrative, does that make it less instructive? Suggesting that simply the use of narrative makes the conclusion invalid is not convincing.
The idea that the essence of sovereignty is not meticulous control is, ironicall, a philosophical system imposed on the text if every I saw one. God takes great care to indicate that it is precisely because He controls the details of everything that I can have hope and certainty that justice will prevail. Scripture takes great pains to make this clear; God controls people (Acts 17:26) and nations (Ps. 33:10-11; Gen 41:28, 32; Gen 45:4-8; Isa. 14:26-27; Dan 4:34-35) and the explicit nature of the texts can’t be relegate to “narrative” as a way of avoiding it. God controls AND man is free. That is the paradigm of Paul. (As a side note, John Frames “The Doctrine of God” provides a very thorough overview of the passages that discuss God’s control in all area of life, from weather to sin).
jeff z  Tuesday, April 04, 2006 2:01 pm
John,
Your answer to Valerie appears to be...if God controls my sin, then why bother. Speaking personally, I don't take my sin lightly precisely because I am doctrinally Reformed and I realize how much I owe to God (my faith, my salvation and every good thing). Obedience comes from an outpouring of love and thanksgiving, not a sense that I have an autonomous will that makes my actions "worthwhile" in a humanistic sense. It is often the feeling that I'm really in control of things that leads to arrogance, sin, and the sense that I don't really need God that much after all (look at the self-help style of worship that pervades much of evangelicalism and the merit systems of Rome and the Orthodox). Secondly, considering the piety and brilliance of men such as Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Bucer, Zwingli, Whitfield, Spurgeon, the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, Huss, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Ryle, etc. etc. along with more contemporary folks such as Packer, Piper, Warfield, Bahnsen, Murray, Van Til, Sproul, Francis Schaeffer, etc. etc. etc., as well as the general effect that Calvinism and the Reformation had on the culture of Europe and the US, the idea that taking sovereignty seriously leads to not taking sin seriously does not ring particularly valid in my mind.
John Barry  Tuesday, April 04, 2006 3:04 pm
jeff z, I make a distinction between the parables of Jesus which carry truth and are instructive, and a narrative account such as the one in Genesis 50, from which Douglas pulls a verse to support his assertion that God "controls" people's sin. (I still don't know what he means by "controls". By the bye, what do *you* mean by "control"? You use the word several times in your responses to me.) In Genesis 50, we have the recorded account of Joseph trying to reassure and comfort his fearful, ugilt-ridden brothers. In his effort to comfort and reassure his brothers, Joseph tells them that "you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good...." Ought I to conclude from this account that God decreed or ordained the brothers' sin, and, by extension, that He ordains the sins of every individual? I think not. As for your not taking sin lightly, I suggest this is because you don't believe that God ordains or decrees your sin.
J.W. Montgomery  Tuesday, April 04, 2006 3:37 pm
Mr. Wilson, I think you are exactly correct. In fact, this is precisely how I view God's sovereignty. His control (or put another way, His freedom) over creation is transcendent, whereas our freedom is imminent. Since they ain't the same, they can't contradict!
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Tuesday, April 04, 2006 4:15 pm
God ordains means as well as ends. To the end of saving His people from starvation, He ordained that some men would sell their brother into slavery for silver. To the end of saving His people from hell, He ordained that a man would sell His Lord unto death for silver. The ultimate end is His glory. If He'd have been more glorified by everyone's having been sinless, then everyone would have been sinless. God must have ordained sin (and every individual's sins) because there's no other way for it (or them) to have come into existence.



The same Bible that teaches me that God controls all things (and by "control" I mean something along the lines of "control") also teaches me that He is holy. It teaches me that indeed I am a sinner deserving of death. It teaches me that by a grace more incomprehensible than His sovereignty, He has dealt out the penalty for my sin upon His most precious and holy Son, in Whom He now counts me as righteous. It teaches me that this same grace is my instructor in the paths of obedience, and that the One who ordains sin also ordains zeal for good works. It teaches me through the stories of every saint on its pages that even redeemed men sin and have need of ongoing repentance and forgiveness. And it teaches me that, thanks be to God! repentance and forgiveness flow freely and abundantly from the fountain of His mercies.

Kyle S.  Tuesday, April 04, 2006 9:23 pm
"Given our creaturely freedom, we are free in Baskins & Robbins to choose whatever flavor we desire. There is no coercion. How this freedom is reconciled with the exhaustive sovereignty of God is a question we cannot answer." Huh? Didn't you just? I thought the point of your post was just to show how they are reconciled. I mean, haven't you shown how they're reconciled if you've shown how the one doesn't undermine or impair the other?
John Barry  Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:41 pm
Valerie, You say, "God must have ordained sin (and every individual's sins) because there's no other way for it (or them) to have come into existence." So, "we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works *and sins*, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Does God hate your besetting sins, or are they His good gifts to you? If your sins are from God, rather than hate them, ought you not thank Him for them each day?
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Tuesday, April 04, 2006 11:15 pm
John, is God in control of death? Does He have say-so over when you will take your last breath? Over the cancer or the heart disease or the bullet or the Mack truck that will bring about your demise? If not, why do you pray for Him to heal or protect? Yet death is our enemy! A conquered enemy, to be sure, and one we need not fear, but an enemy none the less.



How about the devil? Does God have control over Him? Does not Scripture make it clear that the Lord has Satan's fate well in hand? Yet the accuser, too, is most certainly our enemy. Like death, a conquered enemy we need not fear, but none the less a real enemy that can do us real harm.



Sin is like death and the devil -- another defeated yet still dangerous and still evil enemy. I must bow before God's sovereignty that allows these enemies to continue to exist. I must love and be grateful for His plan even insofar as it allows them to trouble me. But I must remember that they are His enemies, too, and I must fight and hate and resist them, not pursue and embrace and walk in them. God ordained both chocolate and arsenic, too, but of course He didn't ordain them for the same purposes, and I need not behave as if He did.

John Barry  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:09 am
Valerie, I still don't know what you mean by "in control of" and "have control over". You say that God ordained both chocolate and arsenic. Has God ordained that you consume arsenic necessarily--i.e., such that you cannot do otherwise?
ragged edge  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 2:42 am
I agree that God "contols" sinners.

God can thwart any sinners activity. A sinner can't even curse a saint if not allowed by God.

Sinners are just doing what comes naturally being an alien from God..being a slave to sin.

This would not be that same as God "telling" a sinner to sin. His Word does nothing but tell us not to sin, and warn us of the damage sin causes.
Becky Rathbun  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 4:43 am
Jeffz,
John rightly point outs that doctrine from history is not the same as the teaching developed by Jesus through the parables. If one uses historical narrative as sources for doctrine, then we are led to some pretty bizarre doctrines. For example, we may develop a doctrine supportive of socialism because of the actions of the Jerusalem church (See Acts 4:32 ff).

Valerie,
You present a false dilemma when you say, "God must have ordained sin (and every individual's sins) because there's no other way for it (or them) to have come into existence." There is the third alternative that God allows creatures free will and the opportunity to exercise that will within the limits of their human power. Because God's power is greater than the power of all other's, God ultimately wins. But He does not have to ordain sins or sinfulness to achieve His ends. The real problem is whether Doug's premise is scriptural. Doug mis-uses historical narrative as support of his premise that free will in men really doesn't exist.
Douglas Wilson  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 5:08 am

Speaking of the narrative of the Jews in the wilderness, a didactic portion of Scripture says, "Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted . . . Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come" (1 Cor. 10:6-11). In short, in order to fend Calvinism off, a hermeneutical rule is being pressed on us that is not expressly taught to us in Scripture. Further, we do not have any examples of scriptural exegetes steering away from narrative passages for deriving doctrine, and we do have express examples, like this one, where doctrine is drawn from narrative. And this is what I meant by philosophical objections. If the narrative shows God ordaining a sinful action, the response is, "I think not." And if the Bible says didactically that this is what He does (Eph. 1:11), the response remains "I think not." I grant Becky's point that this method (like all interpretive methods) can be done wrongly. But the Bible shows us that it can be done right. Like when we are flatly told in multiple places that God ordained a sinful action.
katecho  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 5:53 am
"The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil." - Proverbs 16:4



Can we still dismiss this passage as another narrative? I think not.



John Barry wants to know what is meant by "control". God's ways with creation can vary from flagrant to providential and subtle. His participation isn't always open on the table for us to review and critique for fairness. We can start by saying that God's control is at least His permission for X to occur. If someone says that anything can happen without at least God's permission, then they are worshipping something less than God.



We can say more than this. God's control also involves Him supplying all of the necessary preconditions as well. For example, the sin of mankind is not possible without the creation of mankind. God supplied creation. Sin is not possible if nothing is forbidden. God provided the tree in the middle of the garden, and He supplied the prohibition to eat from it.



Now either God has a purpose or He is a poor planner for supplying all the preconditions for sin to even occur in the first place. Proverbs 16:4 answers which.



Would John Barry admit that God's control is at least this much? Or has this minimalistic understanding of God's control already run afoul of his philosophy?

J.W. Montgomery  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 5:58 am
This topic got me thinking about this topic in detail. I've posted my thoughts on my own blog (http://pipeandpint.blogspot.com) if anybody's interested to read/critique.
Becky Rathbun  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:13 am
Doug,

The passage you quote in Hebrews explains what we are to learn from that particular OT narrative. Therefore, God, through this passage in Hebrews, provides interpretation. The hermeneutical rule being pressed on us that is expressly taught to us in Scripture is that scripture interprets scripture. Can you provide a didactic passage that supports your interpretation of the narrative portions which you quoted in your original posts?
If not, then you require us to believe that your teaching, not scripture, supports your premise. And btw, you and Mike Lawyer were once the exegetes who both taught me the very example I gave to demonstrate why doctrine should not be developed from historical narrative unless scripture has already done that for us.

Cordially,

Becky
Douglas Wilson  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:15 am
Becky, the principle actually is that we ought not to derive doctrine from narrative unless Scripture has already done it, or Scripture has shown us how by giving us the pattern or template. So the question is how we derive doctrine from narrative, not whether we do. But as far as your question as to whether the NT handles the text this way, probably the best example is one that I cited -- Acts 4:26-28. This immediately follows a citation from Psalm 2, why do the heathen rage? They did that because a thousand years before they were born, the Lord promised to rain derision on them from heaven when they attempted (a thousand years after the psalm) to break the Messiah. "For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done" (v. 28).
John Barry  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 11:58 am
Douglas, I still think it would be helpful if you would explain exactly what you mean by God controlling an individual's sin. What relation does God bear to the sin of Pilate, for example? (I don't deny that Pilate sinned. I deny that God specifically decreed Pilate's sin such that Pilate could not do otherwise.)
John Barry  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:13 pm
katecho, Are you saying that God intended Adam and Eve to sin? Is this what you believe? I believe that when God created beings in His own image, He created beings whose will He is unable to override. He can alter my physical condition, alter my circumstances, bring to bear all manner of influences on me, even unmake me, but marvelous God that He is, he cannot override my will! What kind of God would make a creature like that? A mind-bogglingly, wonderful God! A God who is Love. Cordially,
katecho  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 2:20 pm
John Barry asked for a definition of God's control, but didn't directly interact with a minimalistic definition offered.



Specifically, that God's control involves, at the very least, His permission for anything which comes to pass, and that it involves God's supplying of all the preconditions necessary for something to come to pass (those conditions which we cannot supply ourselves). I used the example of the fall, which could never have occurred without God's supplying of creation itself, and of some kind of prohibition which violations He would judge.



Nor did John interact with Proverbs 16:4. But at least he didn't try to dismiss it as OT narrative either.



So we are left not knowing if John agrees or disagrees with this very minimalistic definition of God's control. Perhaps God's control is not really the issue that John suggests it is.

katecho  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 2:59 pm
John Barry states his view that God, "created beings whose will He is unable to override".



Many passages show God easily overrides and directs the hearts of men, all while maintaining their accountability to Him. Passages speak of God hardening or softening hearts, but I suppose Barry dismisses them all as narrative. In any case, I don't believe in a god who is unable to utterly control the vessels he himself has made, to any degree he chooses, at any time. Such a being would not be God.



John Barry asks if I believe that God intended for Adam and Eve to sin. I would answer that Adam and Eve could not have disobeyed God without God's permissive willingness. This is the corner stake. God did not forbid the eating of the tree because He had no idea they might disobey Him. Nor was the tree growing in the middle of the garden by accident. Does this mean God was overjoyed in their act of disobedience? Of course not. But according to Proverbs 16:4, God had a purpose even for their disobedience. God is able to use our sinfulness for His glory only because He is sovereign over the sinfulness of His creatures.



Now a question for John Barry. Can God override your will/desire to sin when/if you reach eternal glory? If not, how long do you think you'll make it before you sin again? If so, then God is able to override your will/desire after all, isn't He?

Sean Mahaffey  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:36 pm
John,


The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and opened Lydia's heart. He takes away a heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh. The natural man cannot discern anything that is spiritual, his heart is at enmity with God and cannot submit to Him. We do not will or work until God shows mercy. We are not born again by our will but by the Spirit. We who are accustomed to doing evil cannot do good. We who are spiritually dead do not yearn for life, we stinketh until we are regenerated. God "controls" us like a potter controls the clay. Our days were fashioned for us and written in God's book before there was one of them. Adam and Eve and Pharaoh and Pilate and Judas and them there Jews and us gentiles do whatever He has purposed beforehand to be done. God "controls" us in the sense that we have been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things after the counsel of His will.


Blessings,


Mahaffey

Sean Mahaffey  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 8:45 pm
(Ex. 7:3; Acts 16:14; Ezek. 36:20; I Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:17; Rom. 9:16-23; Eph. 2:1; Ps. 139:16; Eph. 1:11)
John Barry  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:19 pm
katecho, Dictionary.com has for one definition of "control": "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; to direct." "Dominate": "To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over." "Supreme": "Greatest in power, authority or rank." "Permit": "To allow the doing of (something)." It seems to me that God does "permit" whatever comes to pass. Whether this "permission" is simply a consequential function of the nature of His creation in all its workings in relation to who God is, or an active consideration on His part of each atom's movement, or something else, I don't know. Supplying all the preconditions necessary for something to come to pass doesn't sound like "control" to me. If my children set my place at the table for dinner, and my wife serves my plate, have they exerted a dominating influence over me with respect to whether I eat or not, or directed in which order I eat my food, or how much I eat? As for Proverbs 16:4, this general truth is expressed elsewhere in Scripture. For example, in the next verse. The idea is, you reap what you sow. The wages of sin is death. I see from Genesis 1 that everything that God made is *good*. He doesn't make the wicked at all.
John Barry  Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:42 pm
katecho, I fully believe that God hardens hearts, softens hearts, opens minds, etc. The question is, does He do so by overriding the person's will? Was Pharaoh's heart hardened *against his will*? Was Lydia's heart opened to pay attention to Paul against her will? Were the disciples' minds opened to understand against their wills? You ask, "Can God override your will/desire to sin when/if you reach eternal glory? If not, how long do you think you'll make it before you sin again?" I believe, along with George MacDonald, that our will is that in us which is most divine. If God were to override my will, I would cease to be a creature made in His image or likeness. For reciprocal love to remain what it is, God cannot override my will, either now or in glory. As for not sinning, why should I wait until I reach eternal glory? I fully expect to cease from sin before then. I fully expect to cease from sin *today*. Right now, in fact. Praise be to God who has given me all that I need for this! This is truly Good News.
katecho  Thursday, April 06, 2006 4:28 am
John Barry, I appreciate your responses, and I'm glad you agree that God's control at least involves the requirement of God's permission for whatever comes to pass. I don't understand how you are able to reconcile this with your view that God is in any sense unable to override the will of His own creatures. If God can't override His own vessels any time He wishes, then you are also claiming we can do things without God's permission. I find such a view completely self-contradictory on its face.



The example of your family setting the table for you seems to miss my point about God supplying necessary preconditions. Your example assumes that your family already has all of the preconditions needed to prepare you a meal. My point was that for man's sin to occur, God Himself had to supply several preconditions which we could never supply ourselves, and God did so. Indicating that He had purpose in it, and therefore permissive willingness. Your counter-example doesn't address this. I also find it a bit bizarre that you would construe your family making a meal for you as exerting a "dominating influence" over you. If we render something to God, it is not because God is needy, or must go without if we don't give to Him. What does Christ say? If His disciples go silent "even the stones will cry out" His praises. God is not at our mercy. We are utterly at His.

katecho  Thursday, April 06, 2006 4:57 am
John Barry, Concerning God overriding His creatures, the point is not that God must directly contravene each of us at every moment, but rather that God, being personally in control of all things, is fully capable of such overriding force at any time He wishes. You seem to deny this of God, subordinating Him to our wishes, which makes Him less than God at the same time.



Your response to the question of sinning in the eternal afterlife is thoroughly inadequate. Yes, those in Christ have the means to resist temptation and escape sin, but so did Adam and Eve before the fall. Yet they chose to sin (within God's permissive design for them). If you are no different than Adam and Eve were, in regard to choosing disobedience, then I would expect you to last about as long as they did before you sin in the afterlife. Or are you better than they were?



The point is that, in glory, we will be changed. God is moving us from glory to glory because He has this kind of power to move us. God is not simply moving us back to Adam and Eve's condition. Fighting to keep the broadest range of choices within our arm's reach is not freedom or free-will. It is simply making choice another idol.

SarahL  Saturday, April 08, 2006 1:22 am
This issue has been very confusing to me. Especially in light of 2 Pet 3:9 "The Lord is... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Anybody care to make sense of that for me?
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Saturday, April 08, 2006 3:21 am
I know what you mean, Sarah. I wrestled with this stuff for about four and a half years before I finally started to believe it. Once I got so frustrated with it that I threw my Bible across the room in utter vexation!



The thing with 2 Peter 3 is the context. Back up a little earlier in the verse. To whom is he speaking? "The Lord...is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." Peter is speaking to believers. So the Lord is not willing that any believers should perish. It is clear from verse 7 that He is willing for unbelievers to perish: "the heavens and the earth...are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." The Lord knows who will repent and believe (because He predestined them to repent and believe), and He waits patiently for them to do so. He also knows (also because of His sovereign plan) who will not repent, and He has a plan for them, as well. Does that help?

John Barry  Saturday, April 08, 2006 6:04 am
Valerie, I don't think your interpretation fits the text. Is it meaningful to speak of the Lord wanting believers to "come to repentance"? Haven't they already done so?

SarahL, John Piper has written a thoughtful article attempting to reconcile the "two wills in God". You might find his understanding helpful. You can read it at his "Desiring God" website. I don't hold to his "two will" theory, mind you. I believe that some may not come to repentance despite the Lord's willing it. It appears to me that some things that happen are contrary to the Lord's will. See, for example, Matthew 23:37; Luke 7:30. Cordially,
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Saturday, April 08, 2006 6:18 am
John, Peter is including those who don't yet believe, but will, among "us." In this the apostle follows the example of his Lord, who prayed not only for his current disciples, but who all who would believe through them down all the ages of time.
John Barry  Saturday, April 08, 2006 6:49 am
Valerie, If Peter is speaking only of believers, either present or future, then why is "perishing" mentioned in the text?
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Saturday, April 08, 2006 7:50 am
Because there's a negative in front of it.
Douglas Wilson  Saturday, April 08, 2006 12:21 pm
John, I have a question for you. If you want to assert that God wants absolutely no one to perish, it seems that a reasonable question would be "how badly does He want it?" Given His undeployed resources, and the rate at which non-Christians are dying around the world on a daily basis, the answer would appear to be "not very much." Would you agree?
Charles Long  Saturday, April 08, 2006 2:14 pm
Douglas, your last comment, although challenging, seems a bit tangental (at least to me, the uninitiated). I have a question for you. If you assert that God's will is never violated, and that all the chosen believers will therefore come to repentance and not perish (as per 2Pet 3:9), then what is the point of verse 17? I mean, if the reader falls from his own steadfastness, would not the Calvinist say he was never one of the "us" in verse 9? And if the reader is in fact an "us" man, then why bother with the admonition to beware, as though an "us" man could possibly be lead away against God's verse-9 will?

(This is all, of course, assuming that I have correctly understood your interpretation of verse 9.)
John Barry  Saturday, April 08, 2006 2:16 pm
Douglas, I agree that the answer *could* appear to be "not very much". But I believe that He wants it "very much"--to the fullest extent of Love. God has made the Atonement. I can't conceive of a greater, more effective display of love. But at the same time, the love of the Creator for creatures He made in His image, whose wills He cannot override (as I theorize above), appears to constrain Him.
Douglas Wilson  Saturday, April 08, 2006 4:23 pm
Longshot, if all you were dealing with were our decretal Calvinism, your question would be a stumper. But if we affirm the decrees as secret (Dt. 29:29), and the covenant as that which is revealed (Dt. 29:29), v. 17 is talking about falling from the covenant. Apostasy is a real sin committed by real people who were in Christ (John 15). Of course they were not elect in the decretal sense, but they certainly visible members of the Elect One, who is Christ. And some of them fall away. And that is what all the federal vision ruckus is all about.
Douglas Wilson  Saturday, April 08, 2006 4:32 pm
John, in other words, God loved the starving of the world so much that He put an endless supply of food in the Atonement Food Bank. But He doesn't love them enough to get the word to them that the food is in fact there, waiting for them to pick up. The plain answer to my question is not something that "could appear" to indicate that God does not want them saved from starving "not very much." This has to be the answer. The "fullest extent" of Love that hides what it has done is not that impressive. Some fullness. Some extent. The hundreds of thousands of people in Africa six hundred years ago -- how badly did God want them to "not perish?" The facts show that if this is in fact something that God wants, He clearly wants a bunch of other things a whole lot more -- and this from a God who didn't even have to choose. Century after century of mind-numbing missionary effort and God would have to do is nod His head, and every Wycliffe computer would suddenly have a full and perfect translation of the Bible in it, along with a series of perfect gospel tracts. And the gift of tongues for the missionaries. Forget the missionaries, send in the angels. Face it, John, God's purposes as you understand them do not place a very high priority on lots of people "not perishing."
John Barry  Saturday, April 08, 2006 11:44 pm
Douglas, Re your response to LongShot, if the decrees are secret, how did you, or anyone else, find out about them? Has the word gotten out? (I'll answer your response to me anon).
Douglas Wilson  Sunday, April 09, 2006 3:11 am
John, the content of the decrees is secret. The fact that God is God is not a secret.
John Barry  Sunday, April 09, 2006 7:00 am
Douglas, I don't think the Deuteronomy text refers to *decrees* at all. How do you know that it is *decrees* that are secret?
John Barry  Sunday, April 09, 2006 9:38 am
Douglas, It seems that you resort to adopting the stance of an atheist in your response to me. Can you respond as one who believes that God is love?

As you know, “what can be known about God is plain to [all], because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse….” Also, the Son of Man will render to every starving African according to what he has done. Perhaps these, like Lazarus, have received evil in this life, and are comforted in the next. Or, like Paul, are shown mercy because they acted in ignorance and unbelief. You make it sound like having a perfect translation of the Bible, perfect gospel tracts, or angels delivering the gospel message are somehow improvements on the Atonement that God has already made—fuller demonstrations of His love. Remember that some will not be convinced even if someone should rise from the dead.

I contend that God is constrained by love. Why did God goad Saul the persecutor of Christians? Why did He not simply override Saul’s will? Because He could not. He was (and is) constrained by love. And love does not insist on its own way.
Douglas Wilson  Sunday, April 09, 2006 12:59 pm
John, of course I was talking like an atheist. Pretend I am atheist for a minute, and I am an atheist waving the Problem of Evil over my head, and I am making fun of your God who has a heart full of good intentions, along with no practical follow-through. He has heaps of unlimited atonement in his bag up in heaven, but He somehow does not pour it out on lots and lots of people.

Somewhere on the globe this minute there is an evil person torturing another person to death, using his free will to take away the free will of his victim. Your God is present in the torture chamber and is doing nothing to stop the travesty, though He has the power. God is not willing that any should perish, aye. He is not willing for the terrorist to perish; He is willing for the victim to perish. How do you answer me? I am terribly interested in this Christianity of yours. But no platitudes, please.
John Barry  Sunday, April 09, 2006 1:06 pm
What would *you* have God do in this situation?
John Barry  Sunday, April 09, 2006 2:43 pm
Douglas, I find it curious that you resort to playing the part of an atheist, and to using his "problem of evil" argument for the nonexistence of God to refute my view of God's love. Why do you do this? Why can you not show where I am wrong using God's Word?
Charles Long  Sunday, April 09, 2006 4:00 pm
Douglas,

Enough beating around the bush. Rubber, meet Road. I am totally on board with the idea that God has full foreknowledge of who will submit to Him and who will not. I am also on board with the idea that God is "willing" that those whom he knows will not submit should perish. (I mean, hey -- we are all worthy of death to begin with. If, after forgiveness and atonement have been offered by God the offended, we *still* do not submit, then it is twice justice that we perish.) I'm even fine with the idea that God knows those who will not submit, and may perhaps "harden their hearts" to hasten the accomplishment of his purposes through them (see Pharoah). No problem there. And Doug, I can even swallow your argument (in the above article) that the nature of Gods' Shakepheredom to our Hamletdom is not constrained (and, therefore, should not be judged) by our understanding of what we can observe about relationships within our universe.
(more...)
Charles Long  Sunday, April 09, 2006 4:01 pm
(...continued)
But here's the kicker. The million dollar question. Does God create men UNTO damnation? Or, to ask it another way, Does God create men for the purpose of causing them to be unsubmissive (which, of course, results in their damnation)? And no, I don't mean "Does God know their end before he creates them." That's a no-brainer. Rather, I mean, "Does God predetermine each man's end (some, faith; others, rebellion) and then create them unto it (some, unto salvation; others, unto damnation)?" Does God make the wicked man wicked before foreknowledge enters the picture? Is God filling some kind of Affirmative Action Creation Quota of, say, one soul made for hell for every three made for heaven (or even [gasp] the other way around)?
Douglas Wilson  Sunday, April 09, 2006 4:45 pm
Longshot, if I understand you, you have raised the supralapsarian v. infralapsarian debate, which asks which decree of God is logically prior to the other one. The decree to create or the decree to elect some to salvation. In my mind it is the debate that should never have been, not being the result of exegesis either way. But if you put a gun to my head and asked me, upon pain of death, where my sympathies were, I would reply, under protest, that I had more sympathy with the infralaparians, who say the decree to create was logically prior to the decree of election. And of couree, I cannot mention this debate without pointing to Ambrose Bierce's definition of it, which was that the two parties represented the views, respectively, that Adam fell down and that Adam slipped up.
Douglas Wilson  Sunday, April 09, 2006 4:51 pm
John, I answered this way because I don't believe in your Bible. I couldn't believe in any God who did not love His creatures enough to get the message of salvation to them. So His Son died for them. Who cares? What good does that do if they still die and go to hell, all because God did not care enough about their salvation to spare their lives long enough for the message of salvation to get to them? You say that God is not willing that any should perish. And I ask, and it is a reasonable question, how much is he unwilling for this? Is he "not willing" enough to put himself out? Even a little?
A. Davis  Sunday, April 09, 2006 6:06 pm
Mr. Wilson, I am entirely in agreement with you on this. But isn't Mr. Barry's contention that God is entirely willing, but not able, to save all whom He would wish? Meanwhile, you are assuming (rightly) God's ability to save them, and questioning Mr. Barry closely about God's willingness.

And Mr. Barry, as for your handling of the text, I see at least one place you are at fault. You have notions about people being saved after dying in ignorance and whatnot, but I do not find these notions in the Bible. What I do find there is that we are saved through faith (Eph. 2:8-9, Acts 26:18, Rom. 4) and faith comes through hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ (Rom. 10:17). (This is what all the Bible translations and tracts are for.) "How can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard?" (Rom. 10:14) So, to reason back, no hearing = no faith, no faith = no salvation. Otherwise, why send missionaries?
John Barry  Sunday, April 09, 2006 9:51 pm
Douglas (the atheist), I ask you again, What would *you* have God do in the situation with the terrorist and the torture victim?
John Barry  Sunday, April 09, 2006 10:00 pm
A. Davis, My notion about people being saved after "dying in ignorance and whatnot" comes from texts which correlate guilt and knowledge. Also, I understand 1 Peter 4:6 to refer to the occupants of Sheol at the time Jesus was there after His death. As for sending out missionaries, if all are eventually reconciled to God, does this somehow lessen my obligation today to do as I would be done by?
Douglas Wilson  Monday, April 10, 2006 2:22 am
Joohn, as an atheist, I wouldn't have God do anything. I am simply pointing out that your God is a poser. He says that he is not willing for anyone to perish, but that he doesn't act that way. Look at what he does instead of looking so much at what you think he said in that book of yours. And even if your God doesn't have the resources that the Calvinists attribute to their God, surely he has (even on your showing) the resources of Rupert Murdoch? So why doesn't he deploy some of them? Like, now? When someone is being tortured to death, is your God even there? If he is not, why not? If he is, why doesn't he do something? Why does he privilege the free will of evil people over the free wills of innocent people?
Charles Long  Monday, April 10, 2006 2:25 am
Douglas,
First, thanks for answering my questions. I grapple with this issue.

Now then, assuming you are correct in that the supralapsarian v. infralapsarian should never have been asked, the question still remains for me: "Did Calvinism ask that question? And if so, how did it answer it?"

Or, perhaps more correctly (just in case the supra/infra debate is somehow extra-topical here), would Calvin answer *my* question by affirming that God creates some men unto damnation?
Charles Long  Monday, April 10, 2006 2:30 am
The question in my mind has NEVER been "Is God *sovereign enough* to create man unto damnation without hope." Rather, my question has always been "Does revealed scripture say that God in fact DOES exercise his sovereignty in that way."
John Barry  Monday, April 10, 2006 4:15 am
Douglas, How can someone who doesn't exist be a "poser"? If "my God" exists, what would you have Him do in the situation you describe?
katecho  Monday, April 10, 2006 5:55 am
LongShot, Romans 9:19-23 connects with the issue that you are concerned with. Of course a sovereign God knows the destination of each of His creatures before they are even made. But it raises the question why doesn't God just make only the vessels He knows He will redeem? Why even bother making any vessel that He will not redeem?



This context (like Prov 16:4) says there is a purpose, and the general nature of His purpose is so "that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy".



So by the time God makes a new vessel, whether by foreknowledge alone, or by not re-making it like a vessel of mercy, it is created unto destruction. God doesn't seem to shy from such a conclusion.



You indicate that you believe God is capable of all this, but your question seems to be whether it is fair. How could one begin to answer without postulating some external notion of fairness by which to then judge God? The matter is really one of trust. Do we trust that God is wise, and holy, and that our accountability is real even within the working of His sovereignty?



It is difficult to imagine the possibility of real accountability under such sovereign control, but God is amazing like this. He is able to create persons who are not just appendages of Himself. Ponder this for awhile. There is nothing else like it.

katecho  Monday, April 10, 2006 6:47 am
I think we can summarize why the god, which John Barry describes, does not actually intervene to prevent terrorism and torture.



Although this god beems brightly with the loveliest of intentions and desires, it simply lacks power and resources. The permission of this god is not required in order for something to come to pass. According to John Barry, this god is frankly unable to override the will of men.



As Wilson indicated, Rupert Murdoch could muster more resources and a more effective response to terrorism and torture than the god which John Barry describes.



So while the victims of torture perish, and while the blood of abortions continues to flow, and while the towers smoke and fall, John Barry's god continues to radiate tender emotions and best wishes that no one perish.



In contrast, we hear the God of Scripture thunder, "It shall come about if you ever forget the Lord your God, and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I testify against you today that you shall surely perish. Like the nations that the Lord makes to perish before you, so you shall perish; because you would not listen to the voice of the Lord your God."



A God who speaks and acts like He is God. How refreshing. How worthy of our worship.

Charles Long  Monday, April 10, 2006 6:57 am
Katecho,

Thank you -- you're getting at it. However, for correctness sake, I am not at all asking whether or not this brand of sovereignty is "fair." That, to me, seems quite immature, on a philosophical level at least. I mean, if God DID create everything, then he gets to define fair. No problem.

However, I am concerned with what God has DECLARED that he will do -- not what he CAN do, or what he is ABLE to do; but rather, what he has decided to (and told us he will) do.

So, cards on the table: do I understand correctly then that you (and you too, Douglas) believe that God has declared in scripture that he does in fact create men unto damnation?
katecho  Monday, April 10, 2006 7:04 am
I think my bold got stuck, so I'm posting again in case it didn't turn itself off.



I just noticed this comment by John Barry: "As for sending out missionaries, if all are eventually reconciled to God, does this somehow lessen my obligation today to do as I would be done by?"



I wonder how it is possible, in John Barry's understanding, for God to reconcile everyone to Himself if some do not will to be reconciled with Him? Does God just override their wishes and reconcile them anyway? John Barry says that God is unable to override their will in this manner, regardless of His desires. There seems to be a contradiction in there somewhere.



And what if we change our mind in the afterlife and decide we don't want to be reconciled with this god any more? Can we leave? Eternity is a long long time to be stuck with the god John Barry describes.

katecho  Monday, April 10, 2006 7:51 am
LongShot, Answering only for myself, I do believe that God has declared in Scripture that he does in fact create men unto damnation and condemnation and judgment. I am not aware of any other understanding which would provoke the kind of objection that Paul anticipates in Romans 9:19-20.



I mean not only that God knew that He would not redeem them in the end, but that He also chose to proceed to make these vessels anyway, and without modification.



Of course I affirm that God preserves our full accountability and culpability in all of this. I don't know how that works, but I have personal experience with accountability and culpability, and I trust that God is just and holy.



Related to what Doug said, I believe the infra/supra debate is misguided. We want to iron out God's thoughts as though they can lay flat in a linear sequence and then be subjected to some logical tests. But the order of God's thoughts in this area is not what makes us accountable or unaccountable anyway. We are fully accountable independent of the supra or infra debate.

Charles Long  Monday, April 10, 2006 8:36 am
Katecho, Thanks again -- you have answered my question. But, you then proceded to shift my paradigm. Thanks a lot, pal -- it's been a hard enough day already.

I have never before noticed (why?!?) that Paul was rhetorically asking in Romans 9:19 The Very Same Question I have always used as an objection to Calvinism: "How can there be accountability without free will?" The disturbing part (for me) is that Paul also answered the question. Oh, my.

At this point, as I'm sure you understand, I have to ask this question: If you are correct, then how do I know if I am a vessel of honor? My children??
A. Davis  Monday, April 10, 2006 9:14 am
Mr. Barry, I freely admit that I do not know what exactly 1 Peter 4:6 is talking about. But I may not (and will not) assign a meaning to an unclear text that contradicts the plain meaning of explicit texts. The Bible does indeed teach that guilt and knowledge are related. Knowledge always increases guilt (John 9:41, 15:22,24, 1 Cor. 11:27); but the Bible gives us no warrant to believe that there are any men who are so ignorant as to be innocent. Rather, we are told that all men, regardless of whether they have heard the gospel or not, have sufficient knowledge of God to render them guilty of sin, and worthy of damnation (Rom. 1:18-20; Ps. 14:1-3; Ecc. 7:20; 1 Kings 8:46; Rom. 3:23; see also Lev. 4:13,22,27 and 5:2,4). The Bible does not teach us that those who die in ignorance will be saved; rather, it teaches us that "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law..." (Rom. 2:12) We are taught that those who do not believe shall not be saved; and those who do not hear cannot believe. So, we are told, we must go to them! That's the import of Romans 10:9-15.

Valerie (Kyriosity)  Monday, April 10, 2006 9:31 am
Aside: It's all Greek to me (and not the least bit Chinese). I've been reading "katecho" as "Kate Cho." Turns out it's actually a NT Greek word, not a real name, at all. A lesser paradigm shift than LongShot's, but still a bit of a mental reorientation for me!
Xon Hostetter  Wednesday, April 12, 2006 1:46 am
LongShot, when I 'converted' to Calvinism, the paradigm shift happened for me in much the same way as you just described! (God would never...what, huh? Rom. 9? D'oh!)



As to how you can know whether you are a vessel of honor, consider Calvin's (and Scripture's) exhortation to look to Christ and no other. The answer is the same as it always has been: in Christ alone is salvation. Christ is the "mirror of our election." He is the Elect One, to whom we are united by the Holy Spirit by baptism and who alone can deliver us from death and sin. What cause do you have for concern? Are you not looking to Christ? Then look to him! Are you looking to Christ? Then keep looking to him! Do you think you are looking to Christ, but are worried that you're not "really" following him down in the depths of your "true" heart? Who could possibly feel secure if they were always asking this question? So stop asking it! Just look to Christ, and you will be saved. God has promised. (This is how election "works itself out" from the 'human perspective'.) Look to Him again, and then look to Him some more when you are done. :-)



As to your children, the promise is to you and to your children. God is faithful to thousands of generations of those who trust in (love) Him. Believe it.