|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 13, 2008 17:39:05 GMT -5
God has four distinct governments. God governs over man’s moral actions (Moral Government), God governs over nations (Providential Government), God governs over animals and creatures (Animate Non-Moral Government) and God governs over the matter of the universe (Material Non-Moral Government).
The Material Government (Solar systems, matter, whether, material worlds) is governed by the law of cause and effect (Gen. 6:7, 19:24, Exo. 14:21-29; Num. 11:31; 1 Kin. 18:38; 2 Chro. 7:13; Ps. 50:1, 93:4, 135:6-7; Isa. 45:7, 45:12; Dan. 4:35; Jonah 1:4, 14-15; Matt. 5:45, 8:24-27, 24:29; Mk. 4:39-41; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2-3; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 16:1-4, 8, 12, 18, 21).
The Non-Moral Government is governed by the law of instinct and causation (Gen. 9:2; Num. 22:22-23; Deut. 11:31; 1 Kin. 17:4-6; Dan. 6:22; Jonah 1:17, 2:10; Matt. 10:29, 17:27, 26:74; Mk. 5:11:13).
The Providential Government (nations, rulers, and kings) is governed by the law of influence and causation (Gen. 19:24-25; Exo. 11:9-10; 18:10; 20:2; Num. 33:53; Deut. 2:5; 2:25; 3:20; 9:23; 11:24; Josh. 1:2-6; 1:15, 8:1; 11:20; 23:15; 24:14; 1 Kin. 22:19-23; 1 Chro. 29:10-12; Esther 4:14; Ps. 22:28, 66:7; Prov. 21:1; Isa. 60:22; Jer. 21:10; 27:6; 32:27-30; 35:15; 50:9; Eze. 11:15; 17:24; 29:19; Dan. 2:21; 2:38; 4:17; 4:32; 5:21; 5:18; 7:25; Zeph. 3:8; Jn. 19:10-11; Rom. 13:1; 13:4-5; Rev. 17:17).
But God’s Moral Government over man is governed by motives presented to the mind, appealing to free will. It is not governed by the law of cause and effect, not governed by force, but is rather governed by the law of liberty or the law of influence and response (Gen. 3:11; 4:6-7, 6:5; Deut. 30:19, Josh. 24:15; 1 Kin. 18:21; Isa. 1:16-20, 5:4; 45:22; 55:6-7, 66:3-4; Jer. 2:9; Hos. 10:12; Jer. 18:5-11; 21:8; 26:13; Eze. 18:30-32; 20:7-8; Matt. 23:37; Jn. 1:11; 5:40; 7:17; Acts 2:40; 17:30; 7:51; Rom. 2:5-11; 6:16-17; 2 Cor. 7:1; 2 Tim. 2:21; Jas. 4:7-10; 1 Pet. 1:22; Gal. 6:17-8; Rev. 3:20; 22:17).
It is in God's moral government that we find rebellion, because of man's free will. God's will is not always done on earth as it is in Heaven.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 13, 2008 17:50:56 GMT -5
Does God Ever Take Away Free Will?
God grants man free choice most of the time, but sometimes He might take away free choice and use man as a mere instrument. When it comes to salvation for example, God wants free choices. But when it comes to controlling nations and rulers, God will use causation if influence doesn't work.
CONDITIONS MET WHEN FREE WILL IS SET ASIDE
Michael Saia, in his book on the cross, explains five conditions in which God can justly take away someone's free will:
1. The person is not a righteous person: God has no need to take away the free will of an obedient man.
2. The person's will is only suspended temporarily: the removal of free will is a temporary exception.
3. The person's salvation is not affected by the temporary loss of free will: God does not force a person to be saved or force a person to be reprobated.
4. The event has implications for all mankind: There is a major reason or a great necessity for the free will to be removed.
5. The consequences are suspended: the man is not morally accountable for anything that he did not willingly do, so he will not be rewarded for doing what God wanted him to do.
EXAMPLES OF FREE WILL BEING SET ASIDE
Here are some major examples of God setting aside a man's free will:
1. Balaam's blessing of Israel when he tried to curse (Num. 22-24).
2. The hardening of Pharoah's heart (Ex. 4-14) (I think this is particular situation still open to interpretation)
3. The placement of fear on the hearts of Cannanites so they would be destroyed (Deut. 2:25; 11:25)
4. The stirring of Cyrus's heart to release the Israelites from captivity and to rebuild the temples in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 36:22; Ezra 1:1)
5. The turning of Nebuchadnezzar's mind to that of an animal (Dan. 4)
6. The giving over of a kingdom into the hands of the beast (Rev. 17:17)
These are all examples of God ruling His providential government through causation. That is why the Bible says, "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." Prov. 21:1
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 13, 2008 19:51:07 GMT -5
Jesse please further explain this "Every time the Bible uses the word "sin" it contradicts Calvinistic Sovereignty. If you deny that man is in REBELLION against God, then you deny that mankind is fallen. But if you admit that man is in rebellion against the will of God, then you must deny Calvinistic Sovereignty."
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 13, 2008 19:56:00 GMT -5
- Calvinistic Sovereignty says that everything that happens is the will of God.
- Sin is when man rebels against the will of God.
- Therefore, Calvinistic Sovereignty denies that man is in rebellion against God's will. Therefore, Calvinistic Sovereignty denies the fall of man.
- If you affirm that man is in rebellion against the will of God (sin), then you must deny Calvinistic Sovereignty which says everything is the will of God.
Let me ask you this:
When God looks at this sinful world, is He angry and grieved, or is He happy and pleased?
Does He look at this world and say, "This is perfect. This is exactly what I wanted. This is a beautiful and good world that I created, caused, and controlled."
I'll tell you this, God is grieved and angry with sin, but God is not grieved and angry with His own plan. When God looked at the world that He Himself omnipotently created, He said "it is good" (Gen.. 1:31). But when God looked upon the sinful world that man's free will corrupted, God was grieved and repented of making man (Gen. 6:5-6) and therefore sent the flood.
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 14, 2008 21:58:07 GMT -5
I think it is obvious from scripture God hates sin (which is rooted in man's nature Psalm 5:5) but God has ordained sin to exist for his Glory. Why? The Bible teaches God does whatever he pleases and who are we to question his infinite wisdom and Divine counsel. Sin is that which is contrary to God's nature and character, his law's are a reflection of his nature. However, I have a question for you Jesse. Is it your belief God is Just?
|
|
|
Post by prespilot68 on Aug 15, 2008 7:41:23 GMT -5
..........but God has ordained sin to exist for his Glory. Why? The Bible teaches God does whatever he pleases and who are we to question his infinite wisdom and Divine counsel....... RC - What your putting forth violates the very nature of God. If God is good, but yet his idea of good is different than ours, then we have no motive for obeying God and God has no desire for us to obey him either. Not even fear is now a motivator to love God. Any threat or promise God has made is meaningless according to Calvinism. For all we know Heaven Can be Hell and Hell can be Heaven. So are we to think that since sin brings Him glory, then why not sin more so that it brings him more glory - is that where your logic takes you?? You also seem to put forth that we are not somehow allowed to question God's wisdom or council - or as some Calvinist put it - we are such total imbeciles that we just can't understand his ways - then what's the point to think about God or anything else that he has created?? RC - Let me then ask you a question. Can God be the author of his own unhappiness??
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 15, 2008 15:55:13 GMT -5
What do you mean "Can God be the author of his own unhappiness " ?
I also have a question for you. Do you believe God is just? If so how? Why?
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 15, 2008 16:09:32 GMT -5
What do you mean by this statement "What your putting forth violates the very nature of God. If God is good, but yet his idea of good is different than ours, then we have no motive for obeying God and God has no desire for us to obey him either."
I am not trying to say you our any one else are imbeciles by my comments.
By asking this question you make it clear you have misunderstood me"For all we know Heaven Can be Hell and Hell can be Heaven. So are we to think that since sin brings Him glory, then why not sin more so that it brings him more glory - is that where your logic takes you??" Sin in and of itself does not Glorify God, but him once and for all conquering it does.
I hope I suffeciently answered your questions and statements. I thank you for making me think through my beliefs carefully because it makes me become a better theologian and apologist.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 15, 2008 16:33:57 GMT -5
How could God want sin unless God has a sinful nature?
If God's nature is perfect, God cannot want anything but perfection.
God wants a sinless Universe, because He is sinless!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 15, 2008 19:11:27 GMT -5
Of course. Because God is glorified more when men disobey Him instead of obey Him. It is like honoring your parents. When do you honor your parents the most, when you obey them or when you disobey them? Obviously, when you disobey them. Likewise, God is glorified when men disobey Him, trample upon His law, and disregard His Kingdom.
In Calvinism, sin occurs because God wants it to occur. All the sins of the past, all the sins of the present, all the sins of the future, is precisely what God wanted. When sin occurs, God prefers sin over holiness.
I don't want sin to occur, ever. Does that mean I am ungodly?
As a Christian, we should want what God wants. "Not my will but yours be done". So we should want every sin to occur that actually does occur. We should never want sin to not occur. We should want men to disobey God's law, because God wants men to disobey His law.
Right?
|
|
|
Post by prespilot68 on Aug 15, 2008 21:53:56 GMT -5
What do you mean "Can God be the author of his own unhappiness " ? I also have a question for you. Do you believe God is just? If so how? Why? RC - I would say God is Righteous. Righteousness can be defined as a moral attribute to treat every moral being according to his conduct and to dispense justice (Gen 18:35). His justice comes from his ability to deal rightly with every moral character. Therefore, God is just as a result of his righteousness.
|
|
|
Post by prespilot68 on Aug 15, 2008 22:06:59 GMT -5
What do you mean "Can God be the author of his own unhappiness " ? RC - OK I answered your question so please be so kind to return the favor. Can God be the author of his own unhappiness? In other words, if as you say God has "ordained sin" for his glory is true, we are faced with a contradiction concerning the character of God. We know from scripture that sin pains and grieves God tremendously. If God is then the author of his own misery and pain, then God is not truly loving. For in order for Godhead to be truly loving in His nature and character, each member of the Godhead must perpetually choose to be motivated by love or perfect benevolence in ALL things. However, if as you put forth that God is now responsible for making the Godhead miserable, then truly this is a selfish act and therefore it is unloving. God can not be the author of His own happiness since that would be considered an act of selfishness.
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Aug 15, 2008 22:24:23 GMT -5
God is Holy and Just. His desire is for the obedience of mankind, for His glory. God does not desire the wicked would perish, but that he would turn from his sin and live.
God will not make someone obey, that would be robo-love and not glorifying to God or His plan.
Brother RC, if God authored sin, when did it happen? In the garden, with Adam or Eve....maybe Lucifer before the throne. Did God make Lucifer to sin so that we could have countless wars, disease, famine, etc so that God would get glory?
God is sovereign over the universe, but He has many rebels on planet Earth. Does that mean He wants His plan marred with the sin of mankind? He commands, most rebel, few find the way to eternal life.
If we will be honest and examine the truth that God has not taken our free will but that we have corrupted God's image in us by rebellion against His authority, we should recognize our need to repent from our sin and be saved.
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 16, 2008 1:01:12 GMT -5
In the mind of God sin is already conquered it is just a matter of his timing. God permits (or ordains) sin to continue to exist not because he likes it or it makes him happy or unhappy but rather to fulfull his divine plan which brings him all the Glory.
Our will is bound by sin (Rom 6) we make choices freely according to our strongest desires (or inclinations) so we choose to sin. God does not make us sin he ordains it, but he does not force us. Therefore, we are responsible for our sinning because we choose to sin. Physically we have the ability to choose God and do his will-- we have minds that think logically-- but spiritually we are totally unable to choose God or do his will because we do not have the desire to (we are dead in our sins in need of God to quicken us or raise us up and give us a new nature with an inclination to do his will).
If you believe God is just is he because he chooses to be according to your beliefs?
I hope I answered your questions to satisfactory.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 16, 2008 15:07:47 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 10:13 says that the will of man is not necessitated by the strongest motive. No temptation exceeds the natural/moral ability of man. Man is naturally able to be morally upright or morally depraved, it is his choice.
Sinners have all the faculties needed to obey God - they have the faculties of intelligence, sensibilities, and free will. The only thing that keeps them back is their own internal unwillingness. That is why they need the moral influence of the Holy Spirit to make them willing to do what they are already naturally capable of doing.
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 19, 2008 14:06:12 GMT -5
Jesse, I have a question I would like you to answer. Is it your belief God is just? If so is he just because he chooses to be according to your view?
|
|
jsides
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by jsides on Jan 2, 2009 22:52:19 GMT -5
Open Theism would suggest God does not even know if Satan will burn in hell. How can God say Satan will burn in hell if he does not know the future he can only know it at best a high probability Satan will go. All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God do you suggest this only applys to those who have died and are living how can it apply to those who are yet to be born if everyone has an ability to obey God and never sin?
|
|
jsides
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by jsides on Jan 2, 2009 22:55:43 GMT -5
How does God know Satan will not repent is it only a guess based on observation? How can he know if he does not control the future?
|
|
|
Post by epistemaniac on Jan 4, 2011 2:52:48 GMT -5
My dad just now emailed this to me and it wasn't something that was on my mind at the time but I felt led to share it with you. An excerpt from the www.CrossTV.com video series The Sovereignty of God. Demonstrates how 2 Peter 3:9, which is often used as a proof text against Calvinism, actually helps to prove Calvinism instead. www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=90bc77c1fed3c94885c8link seems to be down.....
|
|
|
Post by epistemaniac on Jan 4, 2011 2:54:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by epistemaniac on Jan 4, 2011 4:03:06 GMT -5
Every time the Bible uses the word "sin" it contradicts Calvinistic Sovereignty. If you deny that man is in REBELLION against God, then you deny that mankind is fallen. But if you admit that man is in rebellion against the will of God, then you must deny Calvinistic Sovereignty. The word "Sovereignty" is a theological word that is not used extensively throughout the Bible. But we do know that God is the Supremely Ruler, and we know that mankind is in rebellion against this supreme Ruler. "His citizens hated him, and would not have him to REIGN over them" Lk 19:14. In other words, His subjects were in rebellion against His Sovereign rule. RC, The burden of proof is on you to prove that God causes EVERY SINGLE SIN that EVER occurs. The Bible never teaches this. The burden of proof is on you to prove that man NEVER has free will. The Bible clearly says that God, at rare times, takes away man's free will or overrides man's will. But the Bible never says that God ALWAYS controls people like puppets. Jesse, just because you say that every time sin is used, that it contradicts Calvinistic sovereignty, it is not necessarily the case. You have to actually prove exactly how this is supposed to take place. In fact, Calvinists say that God, in His absolute sovereignty, uses sin to accomplish His great purpose, ie there were many sins committed by various people against Joseph and against God, but God still used these sins to accomplish His greater will and plan: Genesis 50:20 (ESV) 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." you say "If you deny that man is in REBELLION against God, then you deny that mankind is fallen. But if you admit that man is in rebellion against the will of God, then you must deny Calvinistic Sovereignty." Caricature. False dichotomy. Calvinists do not deny that man is in REBELLION against God. Therefore Calvinists do not deny that mankind is fallen. This is an attempt to force an either/or where there is a tertium quid.... and that is simply that Calvinists admit that man is by nature, a child of wrath and in rebellion against God, and Calvinists affirm that God is absolutely sovereign, in an absolute Calvinistic sense. So there is no "must" here.... you say "The word `Sovereignty' is a theological word..." ... is it now....? lol.... Sovereignty is a theological word... well I'll be.... I would have never guessed.... you continue "that is not used extensively throughout the Bible. But we do know that God is the Supremely Ruler, and we know that mankind is in rebellion against this supreme Ruler." yep.... all true... Sovereignty "δεσπότης (despotēs), ου (ou), ὁ (ho): n.masc.; ≡ DBLHebr 151; Str 1203; TDNT 2.44—1. LN 37.63 ruler, Sovereign Lord, from the OT title for Yahweh’s as the highest, most powerful king (Lk 2:29; Ac 4:24; 2Pe 2:1; Jude 4; Rev 6:10+); 2. LN 57.13 owner, master (1Ti 6:1, 2; 2Ti 2:21; Tit 2:9; 1Pe 2:18+) Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) "† δεσπότης.* 1. Greek Usage. ... By derivation and basic meaning it belongs to the sphere of domestic rule. This is proved by the etym.; .... “the lord of the house,”... The position of the lord of the house in the Indo-Germ. sphere gives it the implication of unlimited authority or power.(Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (2:44). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. emphasis mine) 1413. δυνάστης dunástēs; gen. dunástou, masc. noun from dúnamai (1410), to be able. Possessor of power or authority, one who occupies high position (Acts 8:27; Sept.: Gen. 50:4; Lev. 19:15; Jer. 34:19), especially of independent rulers of territories (Luke 1:52). Referring to the Lord as the absolute ruler (1 Tim. 6:15; Sept.: Prov. 8:15; 23:1). (Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (G1413). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.) you say "The burden of proof is on you to prove that God causes EVERY SINGLE SIN that EVER occurs. The Bible never teaches this." God allows whatsoever comes to pass... thats a little different then saying God causes EVERY SINGLE SIN that EVER occurs. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; [EPH 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! HEB 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath. ROM 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.] .... yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, [JAM 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 1JO 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.] .... nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[ACT 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. MAT 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. ACT 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. JOH 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. PRO 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.] Lastly, you say "The burden of proof is on you to prove that man NEVER has free will. The Bible clearly says that God, at rare times, takes away man's free will or overrides man's will. But the Bible never says that God ALWAYS controls people like puppets." First, the burden of proof will be on you to prove that your definition of "free will" is the biblical definition, and not rather one influenced by secular unbiblical philosophy and culture. Once you arrive at a biblical definition of "free will" then you will see that mankind does indeed have free will, and that this free will is always constrained by God's will, either directly or in terms of external environment or internal psychological factors. But one thing is true, you will never refute Calvinism by resorting to tired old lines suggesting that if God is sovereign then people are puppets. This has been responded to so many times and so thoroughly that to even use it as if it is some kind of serious critique against Calvinism makes you seem suspect in that you either do not know the rebuttals to such caricatures and thus should not be making them, or that you know them and yet make these sorts of statements nonetheless which is even more reprehensible. "The one living and true God, the Bible says, is the absolutely sovereign Ruler of the universe (Pss. 103:19; 115:3; 135:6). Beside the fact that it is God who created the universe according to his eternal purpose in the first place, the Bible teaches that by his providence he oversees both it and all things in it. He works all things after the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11). He causes all things to work together for good (conformity to Christ’s image) for those who love him, for those who are called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28). From him and through him and to him are all things (Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6)—from the raising up and deposing of earthly kings to the flight and fall of the tiny sparrow (Dan. 4:31–32; Matt. 10:29), from the determination of the times and boundaries of the earth’s nations to the number of hairs on a man’s head (Acts 17:26; Matt. 10:30). Long ago King David recognized these truths when, blessing God, he exclaimed: Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O Lord, is the kingdom; and you are exalted as head over all. Wealth and honor come from you; you are the ruler of all things. In your hands are strength and power to exalt and give strength to all. Now, our God, we give you thanks, and praise your glorious name. But who am I, and who are my people, that we should be able to give as generously as this? Everything comes from you, and we have given to you only what comes from your hand. (1 Chron. 29:11–14) King Jehoshaphat likewise declared God the absolute Sovereign: “O Lord, God of our fathers, are you not the God who is in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. Power and might are in your hand, and no one can withstand you” (2 Chron. 20:6). The Scriptures are filled with illustrations of God’s sovereignty over all creation, relating his divine purpose and predetermination to all the events of the world—to the evil no less than to the good—tracing them all back to God’s eternal, wise, and good design to glorify his Son and ultimately himself (Eph. 3:11; Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:28).
|
|
|
Post by epistemaniac on Jan 4, 2011 4:04:30 GMT -5
OLD TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATIONS 1. All of the main characters of Genesis—Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph—God, according to his gracious purpose, chose to their positions of blessing (Gen. 6:8; 12:1–3; 17:19–21; 21:12–13; 25:23; 45:7–8; see Neh. 9:6–7). 2. Are we to believe that it was only an accident that brought Rebekah to the well to welcome Abraham’s servant (Gen. 24:12–27), or that guided Pharaoh’s daughter to the ark in which the infant Moses lay (Exod. 2:1–10)? 3. Joseph declared that the wicked treatment he had received at the hands of his brothers had been an essential part of the divine plan to save the family of Jacob during the intense famine which was to come some years later: Genesis 45:7 “God sent me ahead of you [his brothers] to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.” Genesis 50:20: “You [his brothers] intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” 4. Job, living most likely during the patriarchal age, affirms God’s sovereignty over men and all of life when he responds to his “worthless physician” friends in Job 12:10–23: In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.… To God belong wisdom and power; counsel and understanding are his. What he tears down cannot be rebuilt.… To him belong strength and victory; both deceived and deceiver are his. He leads counselors away stripped and makes fools of judges. He takes off the shackles put on by kings.… He silences the lips of trusted advisors and takes away the discernment of elders. He pours contempt on nobles and disarms the mighty.… He makes nations great, and destroys them; he enlarges nations, and disperses them. 5. According to Job 36:32, the Lord “commands [even the lightning] to strike its mark.” And the some seventy to eighty questions God later addresses to Job in chapters 38–41 are staggering in their depth of penetration, and the number of spheres over which he claims to exercise his sovereignty is awesome (see Job 42:2). 6. During the events leading up to the exodus from Egypt God represented himself as the One who makes man “dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind” (Exod. 4:11). He also arranged every detail of the exodus event to highlight the great salvific truth that it is he who must take the initiative and save his chosen people if they were to be saved at all, because they were incapable of saving themselves. During his conversation with Moses before Israel’s exodus from Egypt, God declared that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart throughout the course of the ten plagues precisely in order to (see the לְמַעַן, lema˓an, “in order to,” in Exod. 10:1; 11:9) “multiply” his signs so that he might place his sovereign power in the boldest possible relief, so that both Egypt and Israel would learn that he is God. This repeated demonstration of God’s sovereign power, the text of Exodus 3–14 informs us, God accomplished through the means of his repeatedly hardening Pharaoh’s heart. In order to claim that God’s hardening activity in this story is to be viewed only as a reactionary, conditional, and judicial hardening rather than a more ultimate, discriminating, and distinguishing hardening, some theologians have argued that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart only after Pharaoh had already hardened his own heart. A careful assessment of the biblical data will show, however, that there is nothing in the entire Exodus context to suggest that this is the proper approach to this crux interpretum.17 It is true, of course, that Pharaoh would already have had a sinner’s heart prior to the event, and it is also true that three times we are informed that Pharaoh hardened his heart,18 but these facts alone do not require that we must say that Pharaoh would necessarily have hardened his heart against Israel after the first confrontation (Exod. 7:6–13). He could just as easily and readily, in God’s providence, have been convinced by the first confrontation that the better part of wisdom dictated his letting Israel go. A careful examination of the biblical text will show not only that ten times is it said that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart,19 but also that God twice declared to Moses, even before the series of confrontations between Moses and Pharaoh began, that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart “and [thereby] multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt” (Exod. 4:21; 7:3). The first time then that it is said that Pharaoh’s heart was hard, the text expressly declares that it was so “just as the Lord had spoken” (Exod. 7:13), clearly indicating that Pharaoh’s hardness of heart had came about due to God’s previous promise to harden it. And the first time it is said that Pharaoh “made his heart hard,” again we are informed that it was so “just as the Lord had spoken” (8:15; see also 8:19; 9:12, 35). Paul would later declare in Romans 9 that in his hardening activity God was merely exercising his sovereign right as the Potter to do with his own as he pleased (Rom. 9:17–18, 21). In the Exodus context, God, in fact, declared to Pharaoh that the reason behind his raising Pharaoh up and placing him on the throne of Egypt (or “preserving him” upon the throne, as some translators construe the Hebrew) was in order to show by him his power and in order to proclaim his own name throughout the earth (Exod. 9:16; see also Rom. 9:17). It is evident from both Exodus and Romans that Pharaoh and Egypt were at the disposition of an absolute Sovereign.20 7. God declared that he would so control the hearts of men that none would desire an Israelite’s land when the latter appeared before him three times a year (Exod. 34:24). 8. During the conquest of Transjordan, Moses again represented God as the hardener of kings’ hearts: “Sihon … was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hands” (Deut. 2:30). 9. On the eve of Canaan’s conquest, Moses informed Israel that God had chosen them to be a people for his own possession by an election (see Amos 3:2) based not upon Israel’s merit but upon God’s condescending love and grace: Deuteronomy 4:37: “Because he loved your forefathers and chose their descendants after them, he brought you out of Egypt by his Presence and his great strength.” Deuteronomy 7:6–8: “The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand.” Deuteronomy 9:4–6: “After the Lord your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, ‘The Lord has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.’ No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.” Deuteronomy 10:15: “The Lord set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today.” 10. During the conquest of Canaan, “there was not a city which made peace with the sons of Israel except the Hivites living in Gibeon; they took them all in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, just as the Lord had commanded Moses” (Josh. 11:19–20). Here again the hardness of people’s hearts is traced to the Lord’s providence. 11. Samson’s infatuation with the Philistine woman of Timnah “was from the Lord, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines” (Judg. 14:4). 12. Eli’s wicked sons did not listen to their father’s sage advice which would have saved them, “for it was the Lord’s will to put them to death” (1 Sam. 2:25). 13. During Absalom’s rebellion against David, although Ahithophel’s counsel to Absalom was militarily superior to Hushai’s, Absalom nonetheless decided to follow Hushai’s advice, “for the Lord had determined to frustrate the good advice of Ahithophel, in order to bring disaster on Absalom” (2 Sam. 17:14). 14. According to Proverbs 8:22–31, God, acting under the guidance of his eternal wisdom which “he possessed in the beginning of his work,” framed “from everlasting” an all-inclusive plan embracing all that is to come to pass, in accordance with which plan he governs his universe down to the least particular so as to accomplish his perfect and unchangeable purpose. 15. Rehoboam’s failure to heed the people’s plea for relief from the yoke of heavy taxation and oppressive labor resulted in the division of the united kingdom, and “this turn of events was from the Lord” (1 Kings 12:15). 16. Amaziah of Judah did not heed the warning issued to him by Joash of Israel “for it was from God, that he might deliver them into the hand of Joash because they had sought the gods of Edom” (2 Chron. 25:20). 17. Such passages as the above illustrate the truth of Proverbs 21:1: “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.” (See Judg. 7:22; 9:23; 1 Sam. 18:10–11; 19:9–10; 2 Chron. 18:20–22; Ezra 1:1–2; 7:27.) 18. The Psalmist declares that the number of a man’s days is ordained by God before he is born (Pss. 31:15; 39:5; 139:16). 19. The Psalmist traces the blessings of salvation to divine election when he sings: “Blessed is the man you choose and bring near to live in your courts” (Ps. 65:4). 20. The Psalmist also exclaims: “Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases” (Ps. 115:3). Again, he declares: “The Lord does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths” (Ps. 135:6). 21. The wise man of Proverbs 16 acclaimed God’s sovereign rule over men when he declared: “To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the Lord comes the reply of the tongue” (Prov. 16:1); again, “The Lord has made everything for himself, even the wicked for the day of evil” (v. 4); yet again, “In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps” (v. 9); and finally, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (v. 33). See also in the same vein the following statements: Proverbs 19:21: “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails.” Proverbs 20:24: “A man’s steps are directed by the Lord. How then can anyone understand his own way?” Proverbs 21:30: “There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the Lord.” 22. Isaiah declared God’s awesome sovereignty over Assyria when he wrote that under God’s sovereign governance Assyria would come against Israel because of the latter’s transgressions, even though Assyria “does not intend nor does it plan so in its heart” (Isa. 10:6–7). 23. The same prophet declared that all things happen in accordance with God’s eternal and irresistible decree: Isaiah 14:24, 27: “Surely, as I have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will stand.… For the Lord Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him?” Isaiah 46:10, 11: “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.… What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.” 24. Through the same prophet God declared that it is he, the Lord, who forms and creates darkness: “I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things” (Is. 45:7). 25. Echoing the same theme, Amos rhetorically queried: “When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?” (Amos 3:6). 26. Through Habakkuk God revealed to Judah that he was going to bring the Neo-Babylonians into the land to chasten Judah for her sins (Hab. 1:5–6), again pointing up his sovereign governance of the hearts of kings and of nations. 27. Daniel informed Nebuchadnezzar on the basis of a heavenly vision (Dan. 4:17) that “the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind; and bestows it on whomever he wishes” (4:31–32). Then after his humbling experience, the chastened Babylonian king blessed the Most High with the following words: “His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation. And all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but he does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and no one can ward off his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’ “ (vv. 34–35). 28. Perhaps no declaration sums up the attitude of the Old Testament witness to God’s awesome sovereignty over men and nations more majestically than Isaiah 40:15, 17, 22, 23: Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; He weighs the islands as though they were fine dust.… Before him all the nations are as nothing; they are regarded by him as worthless and less than nothing.… He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.… He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing. These Old Testament statements make it abundantly clear that God is absolutely sovereign in his world, that his sovereignty extends to the governance of all his creatures and all their thoughts and actions, and that his governance of people in particular down to the minutest detail is in accord with his most wise and holy purpose for both the world and the rational creature whom he created. NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATIONS The New Testament is even more didactically explicit than the Old in its insistence upon God’s sovereignty over life and salvation: 1. Jesus teaches that the minutest occurrences are directly controlled by his heavenly Father. It is he who feeds the birds of the air (Matt. 6:26) and clothes the fields with flowers (Matt. 6:28). Not a sparrow is forgotten by God or falls to the ground apart from his will, and the very hairs of our heads are all numbered (Matt. 10:29–30). 2. Immediately after being rejected by certain cities of Galilee, Jesus prayed: “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure” (Matt. 11:25–26). 3. He also said: “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots” (Matt. 15:13). 4. On another occasion Jesus expressly taught that no one can come to him unless the Father savingly acts first in his behalf: John 6:44–45: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.… It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught of God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.” John 6:65: “No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” 5. In the same vein Jesus declared in his high-priestly prayer in John 17: John 17:2: “For you [Father] granted him [the Son] authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.” John 17:6: “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world.” John 17:9: “I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.” John 17:12: “None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.” 6. John traced Israel’s rejection of Jesus to God’s work of blinding and hardening: “For this reason they could not believe, because … ‘He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes nor understand with their hearts, nor turn” (John 12:37–40; see Isa. 6:9–10; Mark 4:11–12; Rom. 9:18–24; 11:32). Here we see in the New Testament the same “hardening” doctrine that we noted in the Old Testament. 7. Again, Jesus said: “You did not choose me, but I chose you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last” (John 15:16). And on another occasion he said: “Many are invited, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14). 8. Before Pilate Jesus declared: “You could have no authority against me, except it were given you from above” (John 19:11). 9. Peter declared unequivocally that the treatment and death by crucifixion perpetrated on the Son of God by wicked men were in accordance with “the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23)—evidence from Scripture that God’s eternal decree included the foreordination of evil (see also in this connection Matt. 18:7; 26:24; Mark 14:21; Luke 17:1; 22:22.) 10. The entire early church in Jerusalem gladly affirmed God’s sovereignty over all of life, and specifically reaffirmed that all that Herod, Pilate, the Roman soldiers, and the Jewish religious leaders had done to Jesus was “what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen” (Acts 4:28). 11. Three times in Acts Luke points to the election and prevenient work of God in the salvation of individual Gentiles: Acts 13:48: “And all who were appointed for eternal life believed.” Acts 16:14: “The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.” Acts 18:27: “On arriving, [Apollos] was a great help to those who by grace had believed.” Accordingly, Luke ascribes the church’s growth to the hand of the Lord (Acts 11:21) or to the direct act of God (Acts 14:27; 18:10). 12. James notes that God, the source of “every good and perfect gift,” “chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits to all he created” (James 1:17–18) and “chose those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him” (James 2:5). 13. In the extended passage in Romans 8:28–39 Paul traces all redemptive blessing ultimately to God’s sovereign foreknowledge (to be understood as God’s covenantal love, not mere prescience) and predestination: “those whom God foreknew [foreloved], he also predestined.… Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen?” 14. In Romans 9, in view of Israel’s high privileges as the Old Testament people of God and the lengths to which God had gone to prepare them for the coming of the Messiah, Paul addresses the anomaly of Israel’s official rejection of Christ. He addresses this issue at this point for two reasons: first, he is aware that, if justification is by faith alone (as he had argued earlier), with race being irrelevant, one could ask: “What then becomes of all of the promises which God made to Israel as a nation? Have they not proven to be ineffectual?” He knows that, unless he can answer this inquiry, the integrity of the Word of God would be in doubt, at least in the minds of some. This in turn raises the second possible question: “If the promises of God proved ineffectual for Israel, what assurance does the Christian have that those divine promises implicit in the great theology of Romans 3–8 and made to him will not also prove to be finally ineffectual?” Accordingly, he addresses the issue of Israel’s unbelief. His explanation in one sentence is this: God’s promises to Israel have not failed, because God never promised to save every Israelite; rather, God promised to save the elect (true) “Israel” within Israel (Rom. 9:6). He proves this by underscoring the fact that from the beginning not all the natural seed of Abraham were accounted by God as “children of Abraham”—Ishmael was excluded from being a child of promise by sovereign elective divine arrangement (9:7–9). Now few Jews in Paul’s day would have had much difficulty with the exclusion of Ishmael from God’s gracious covenant. But someone might have urged for the sake of argument that Ishmael’s rejection as a “son” of Abraham was due both to the fact that, though he was Abraham’s seed, he was also the son of Hagar the servant woman and not the son of Sarah, and to the fact that God knew that he would “persecute him that was born after the Spirit” (Gal. 4:29; see Gen. 21:9; Ps. 83:5–6). In other words, it could be argued, God drew the distinction between Isaac and Ishmael not because of a sovereign divine election of the former, but because they had two different earthly mothers and because of Ishmael’s (divinely foreknown) subsequent hostility to Isaac. The fact of two mothers is true enough, and indeed this fact is not without some figurative significance, as Paul himself argues in Galatians 4:21–31.21 But Paul sees clearly that the principle which is operative in Isaac’s selection over Ishmael is one of sovereign divine discrimination and not one grounded in human circumstances. Lest the elective principle which governed the choice of Isaac (and all the rest of the saved) be lost on his reader, Paul fortifies his position by moving to a consideration of Jacob and Esau. Here there were not two mothers. In their case there was one father (Isaac) and one mother (Rebekah) and, in fact, the two boys were twins, Esau—as Ishmael before him—even being the older and thus the one who normally would be shown the preferential treatment reserved for the firstborn son. Moreover, the divine discrimination was made prior to their birth, before either had done anything good or bad. Note Romans 9:11–13: Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose according to election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Clearly, for Paul both election (“Jacob I loved”) and reprobation (“Esau I hated”) are to be traced to God’s sovereign decree of discrimination among men.22 Because Romans 9:13 is a quotation from Malachi 1:2, 3, which was written at the end of Old Testament canonical history, the Arminian theologian contends that God’s election of Jacob and his rejection of Esau are treating of nations here and are to be traced to God’s prescience of Edom’s sinful existence and despicable historical treatment of Israel (Ezek. 35:5). But for the following three reasons this interpretation introduces the element of human merit that is foreign to Paul’s entire argument in Romans 9 and totally distorts his point. a. The Malachi context is against it. The very point the prophet is concerned to make is that after his election of Jacob over Esau God continued to love Jacob, in spite of Jacob’s (Israel’s) similar history to that of Esau (Edom) as far as his covenant faithfulness is concerned, and to reject Esau because of his wickedness. b. To inject into Paul’s thought here to the slightest degree the notion of human merit or demerit as the ground for God’s dealings with the twins is to ignore the plain statement of Paul: “before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose according to election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told .… ” c. To inject into Paul’s thought here the notion of human merit or demerit as the ground of God’s dealings with Jacob and Esau is also to make superfluous and irrelevant the following anticipated objection to Paul’s argument which he captured in the questions: “What then shall we say? Is God unjust?” No one would even think of accusing God of injustice if he had related himself to Jacob and Esau strictly on the basis of human merit or demerit. But it is precisely because Paul had declared that God related himself to the twins not on the basis of human merit but solely in accordance with his own elective purpose that he anticipated the question: “Why does this not make God unjust and arbitrarily authoritarian?” It is doubtful whether any Arminian will ever be faced with the question that Paul anticipates here simply because the Arminian doctrine of election is grounded in God’s prescience of men’s faith and good works. It is only the Calvinist who insists that God relates himself to the elect “out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace” (WCF, III/v) who will face this specific charge that God is unjust. We also learn from Romans 9:11–13 that the elective principle in God’s eternal purpose serves and alone comports with the grace principle which governs all true salvation. Note Paul’s expression, “in order that God’s purpose according to election might stand: not according to works but according to him who calls.” Here we see the connection between God’s grace and his elective purpose dramatically exhibited in God’s discrimination between Jacob and Esau, which discrimination, Paul points out, occurred “before [μήπω, mēpō] the twins were born, before either had done anything good or bad” (see Gen. 25:22–23). Paul then explains the reason for the divine discrimination with the words: “not by [ἐκ, ek] works but by [ἐκ, ek] him who calls [unto salvation]” (Rom. 9:12).23 This is equivalent to saying “not according to works but according to electing grace.” Paul teaches here that God’s elective purpose is not, as in paganism, “a blind unreadable fate” which “hangs, an impersonal mystery, even above the gods,” but rather that it serves the intelligible purpose of “bringing out the gratuitous character of grace.”24 In fact, Paul refers later to “the election of grace” (Rom. 11:5). The upshot of all this is just to say: “If unconditional election, then grace; if no unconditional election, then no grace!” Stated another way: To say “sovereign grace” is really to utter a redundancy, for to be gracious at all toward the creature undeserving of it requires that God be sovereign in his distributive exhibition of it. In Romans 9:15–18 and 9:20–23 Paul responds to two objections to his teaching on divine election which he frames in question form: (a) “What then shall we say? Is God unjust?” (9:14)—the question of divine justice (or fairness)—and (b) “One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?’ ” (9:19)—the question of human freedom. In response to both objections he simply appeals to God’s absolute, sovereign right to do with men as he pleases in order to accomplish his own holy ends. In Romans 9:15–18, in response to the first question (the question of divine justice or fairness), contrasting Moses—his example of the elect man in whose behalf God had sovereignly determined to display his mercy (v. 15; see also v. 23)—and Pharaoh—his example of the nonelect man whom God had sovereignly determined to raise up in order to (ὅπως, hopōs) show by him his power and to publish his name in all the earth (v. 17; see also v. 22), Paul first declares: “[Salvific mercy] does not depend on man’s will or effort, but on God who shows mercy” (9:16). By this remark Paul makes it clear that God’s salvific dealings with men are grounded in decretive, elective considerations with no consideration given to human willing or working (see also John 1:13). Then Paul concludes: “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden” (v. 18), answering the question concerning the justice of God in view of his elective and reprobative activity (see 9:11–13) by a straightforward appeal to God’s sovereign right to do with men and women as he pleases in order that he might exhibit the truth that all spiritual good in man is the fruit of his grace alone. Then in Romans 9:20–23, in response to the second question (the question of human freedom), after his rebuke: “Who are you, O man, to talk back to God,” Paul employs the familiar Old Testament metaphor of the potter and the clay (see Isa. 29:16; 45:9; 64:8; Jer. 18:6) and asks: “Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay [mankind viewed generically] some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?” Paul, of course, expects an affirmative response to this rhetorical question. He is teaching (1) that the potter sovereignly makes both kinds of vessels, and (2) that he makes both out of the same lump of clay. The metaphor clearly implies that the determination of a given vessel’s nature and purpose—whether for noble or for common use—is the potter’s sovereign right, apart from any consideration of the clay’s prior condition. This suggests in turn that God sovereignly determined the nature and purpose of both the elect and the nonelect in order to accomplish his own holy ends, apart from a consideration of any prior condition which may or may not have been resident within them (see 9:11–13 again). Proverbs 16:4, in my opinion, aptly expresses the intention of the metaphor: “The Lord has made everything for his own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.” So here Paul simply appeals again to God’s sovereign right to do with men and women as he pleases in order to accomplish his own holy ends. And Paul registers his appeal to God’s sovereignty without qualification even though he fully understands that the “man who does not understand the depths of divine wisdom, nor the riches of election, who wants only to live in his belief in the non-arbitrariness of his own works and morality, can see only arbitrariness in the sovereign freedom of God.”25 This feature of the potter metaphor then lays the stress on the divine will as the sole, ultimate, determinative cause for the distinction between elect and nonelect. God’s Word has not failed regarding Israel, Paul argues in sum, because God’s dealings with men are not ultimately determined by anything they do but rather by God’s own sovereign discriminating purpose. Therefore, Christians too may be assured that, God having set his love upon them from all eternity by his sovereign purposing arrangement, nothing will be able to separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:28–39). For many people, even Christians, this teaching raises the question of arbitrariness in God. Even Geerhardus Vos, commenting on Romans 9:11–13, acknowledges “the risk of exposing the divine sovereignty to the charge of arbitrariness”26 which Paul was willing to run in order to underscore the fact that the gracious election of Jacob (and the corresponding reprobation of Esau) was decided before (indeed, eternally before) the birth of the brothers, before either had done good or bad. Arminian theologians would spare Vos’s readers the words “risk of” and simply charge that the Reformed understanding of election does in fact expose God to the charge of arbitrariness in his dealings with men. What may be said in response to this charge? Does the Reformed understanding of election (which we would insist is the Pauline understanding of election as well) impute arbitrariness to God when it affirms that God discriminated between man and man before they were born (is this not what Paul says?), completely apart from a consideration of any conditions or causes (or the absence of these) in them (is this not what Paul means by his “not by works” and his “before either had done good or bad”?)? As Paul would say (9:14): “Not at all!” God’s dealings with men are never arbitrary if Arminians mean by the word “arbitrary” to choose or to act one way at one time and another way at another, that is to say, willy-nilly or inconsistently, or to choose or to act without regard to any norm or reason, in other words, capriciously. Reformed thinkers deny that they impute such behavior to God. They insist that God always acts in a fashion consistent with his prior, settled discrimination among men, and that his prior, settled discrimination among men was wisely determined in the interests of the grace principle (see Rom. 9:11–12; 11:5). Because Paul recognized that the degree, however small, to which an individual is allowed to be the decisive factor in receiving and working out the subjective benefits of grace for his transformation “detract(s) in the same proportion from the monergism of the divine grace and from the glory of God,”27 he calls attention to God’s “sovereign discrimination between man and man, to place the proper emphasis upon the truth, that his grace alone is the source of all spiritual good to be found in man.”28 Which is just to say that if God chose the way he did, out of the infinite depth of the riches of his wisdom and knowledge (11:33), in order to be able to manifest his grace (9:11), then he did not choose arbitrarily or capriciously. In other words, the condition governing the reason for his choosing the way he did does not need to lie in the creature. (Indeed, from the very nature of the case the condition could not lie in the creature. If it did, the creature would be the determining agent in salvation and become thereby, for all intents and purposes, God.) If there was a wise reason in himself for choosing the way he did (and there was, namely, that he might make room for the exhibition of his grace as alone the source of all spiritual good in men), then he did not choose capriciously. Of course, “there may be many other grounds [that is, reasons] for election, unknown and unknowable to us,” it is true. But, as Vos reminds us, “this one reason we do know, and in knowing it we at the same time know that, whatever other reasons exist, they can have nothing to do with any meritorious ethical condition of the objects of God’s choice.”29 Paul concludes his discourse on predestination by saying “For from him and through him and to him are all things” (Rom. 11:36). 15. In another context Paul writes: “By [God’s] doing you are in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:30), which effectual work he views as the outworking of divine election (1:23–28). 16. Paul enunciated God’s sovereignty over and predestination of men unto adoption as sons in doxological form in Ephesians 1:3–14: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestinated us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the kind intention of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed upon us in the Beloved.… In him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestinated according to his purpose who works all things after the counsel of his will, in order that we … might be for the praise of his glory. (emphasis supplied) 17. Paul insists still further that “God has chosen [the Christian] from the beginning for salvation” (2 Thess. 2:13), and that God saved the Christian “not according to works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was granted [the Christian] in Christ Jesus from all eternity” (2 Tim. 1:9). 18. As a final example, Peter contrasts those who disobey, “unto which disobedience,” he says, “they were appointed,” with those who believe, whose faith he traces to the fact that they are “a chosen generation” (1 Pet. 2:8–9). Scores of other examples could be cited (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:11; Rev. 17:17) all to the same effect, showing that God is represented in Scripture as both the sovereign Ruler over the world and all its creatures and the sovereign Savior of sinners. Thus it is clear that Pinnock in particular and Arminianism in general are in grave error when they reject the Calvinist view of predestination that teaches that God’s sovereign decree determines human actions and destinies. The Bible teaches that God, for the manifestation of his glory, predestined some men and angels to everlasting life and foreordained others to everlasting death. Reymond, R. L. (1998). A new systematic theology of the Christian faith. Lectures delivered at Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Mo. and Knox Theological Seminary, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (358). Nashville: T. Nelson.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 4, 2011 15:22:42 GMT -5
So there's this bank in town called Sovereign Bank right? And I need to open an account. So I walk in and say to the lady, I says to her, "Lady, with all of my heart I would like to open an account this very day." And she looks me right in-between the eyeballs and says "NO!" and I fell back onto the floor.
Now the janitor was kind enough to lift me to my feet and, after brushing the dust off my jacket, he says to me, he says, "Look, we have to open the account FOR you."
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 4, 2011 15:27:56 GMT -5
Billy Hibbard. He grew up Calvinist and was gonna kill himself when he was 12 years old 'cause he figured it was the most noble course of action given the two possible destinies he might have. When he was older he became open theist, grew a slight mullet, and joined the Methodist traveling preachers here in New England. One time a bunch of Presbyterian determinists tried to jump him because they didn't like his holiness preaching. That was in the town I work in, 1700's. He fought in one of the early American battles.
|
|
|
Post by epistemaniac on Jan 5, 2011 14:09:01 GMT -5
yeah that makes sense, you will either go to heaven, or to hell... so you might as well kill yourself, yeah that sounds like a 12 yr old talking... I am not sure why someone not opening a bank account for you would cause you to collapse on the floor, but if the bank manager or teller isn't going to open an account for you you can bet that the janitor isn't going to be able to do so... ... but ok... if you walk into the Sovereign bank and say with all your heart that you would like to open account, the bank manager would say "of course we will, and here... we already have an account set up for you because we knew you were coming"... what is most impressive is the way all the Scripture proving a Calvinistic soteriology and understanding of predestination has been dealt with... 2 anecdotal stories that are unrelated to any of the Scriptures given, which themselves contain no Scriptural support... wow....
|
|
|
Post by veritas77 on Feb 1, 2011 22:25:01 GMT -5
|
|