The Glorious Paradox

I've never before enjoyed reading in the Old Testament prophets, since they are usually so dull and boring. Yet the more I read them, the more I find the wonders of the mercy of God on full display.

An excellent example of this comes buried in the middle of Ezekiel. God is defending himself against the charges of the Israelites that they are being punished for their fathers' sins by telling them that "the son shall not die for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (18:20). But then comes this wonderful little passage:

“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?....For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord, so turn, and live." (18:21-23, 32)

What a beautiful statement about man's free will, and how God has abdicated his sovereignty in order to allow man to make his own decisions, right? Not so fast. Flip over two chapters to the section where God is reprimanding Israel for its constant rebellion against him. Suddenly comes this marvelous treasure:

And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I deal with you for my name's sake, not according to your evil ways, nor according to your corrupt deeds, O house of Israel, declares the Lord God. (20:44)

So God doesn't deal with us according to our deeds, but according to his mercy, for the glory of his name? How do these two ideas fit together? Short answer: it's the glorious mystery of God's sovereignty. How beautiful a thing it is to lean on the mercy of God!

Dishonorable vessels

After many, many months, the predestination issue resurfaces here on HoldFast. This post comes about because one of the favorite topics of discussion up here is the topic of predestination/election, especially between the Lutherans and the Calvinists. After one such discussion, I read Romans 9 in my quiet time and was struck down, because this passage answers the single most difficult question the Calvinists have to answer: Why would God create people just to damn them? This question was posed by Claire back in my post The Line Cannot Comprehend the Cube, and had been posed since I've been here. This passage literally had me jumping up and down in my seat because it was so amazing, so I'm going to quote it at length here. If you're interested in this topic, you don't want to miss this:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:6-24)

Whoa! I read that again and I'm floored again! Let's walk through his argument here step-by-step: Paul states that the entire nation of Israel will not be saved, i.e. just being an Israelite is not enough to save you. Those who are saved are children of the promise, not the flesh. As an example, he relates the story of Jacob and Esau, a set of twins, who are about as close to natural equals as you can possibly get. Yet before they were even born, before they could do anything to make up his mind, God chose Jacob to love and bless and Esau to hate and curse. It was a free choice, and had nothing to do with what they did or were going to do.

He continues by refuting the idea that this is unjust. He exercises his divine Creator's prerogative by showing mercy and compassion to those whom he chooses. Paul gives the example of Pharaoh, who was raised up by God entirely so that he could be brought down again. He never had a choice (in the free will-position's sense of the word), but was "forced" to harden his heart, and was then damned for it.

Then comes the question of the hour: Why does he blame us for this? If he forces/predestines us to sin, why are we then damned for that same sin? He responds as God responds to Job: Who are you to question the decisions of God? Does the creature have any right to demand reasons of the Creator? The Creator has the right to do whatever he wishes with his creation. He creates vessels for honorable use (those who will be saved) and some for dishonorable use (those who will be damned).

Then comes the answer to the question posed at the beginning: Why would God create men to damn them? The answer is this: by making known his wrath and his power against those vessels "prepared for destruction", he glorifies himself by saving others whom he has predestined for heaven. He makes known the riches of his glory by showing mercy to some and and not others.

This is a big deal! Paul is stating that God damns people to hell for sins that they are predestined to commit. How does that fit in with the idea that men have a free choice, uninfluenced by God, whether or not to accept salvation? It really doesn't.

Edit: I should point out that I have not addressed at all the way free will fits into the Calvinist paradigm. I'm only looking at one side of the issue in this post, and the issue is more complicated, because although God predestines us to sin, we are still responsible for it. This does not remove responsibility from us in the slightest. How do those two views synthesize? I'm honestly not sure. Ultimately, I think it's just one of those mysteries we'll have to wait for heaven to answer. I just think it's a mistake to give humans too much credit, as I think the free will position does. End Edit.

I know that I will now begin hearing arguments based on verses such as 1 Timothy 2:4, "[God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." I would just like to point out the distinction between God's secret (or decreed) will and God's revealed will. God's revealed will is, according to Wayne Grudem, "God's declared will concerning what we should do or what God commands us to do." God's secret will, on the other hand, is "his hidden decrees by which he governs the universe and determines everything that will happen." Grudem gives a detailed exegesis of these concepts and the differences between them on pages 213-216 of his outstanding Systematic Theology (the new 2007 edition, I'm not sure about the old one), and I can relate some of his arguments for that, but suffice it to say that passages like 1 Timothy are statements of revealed will, not decreed will: we are to evangelise everyone because we don't know who is predestined to be saved.

I'm sure that this post will stir up much controversy, so let the argumentation begin. But let's keep it civil, folks.

The Line Cannot Comprehend the Cube, Part 2

So my post on election stirred up some controversy, albeit a little belated. I thought this would be as good a time as any to examine the biblical evidence for predestination. One of the things that Karyn and Claire keep saying is stuff along the lines of "It just doesn't make sense that God would..." or "it doesn't seem in accordance with God's character that he would..." What I think is that we need to leave that kind of conjecture behind and examine what the Bible says on the topic (many thanks to Joe for his help in compiling these).

First we need to figure out what is man's state before God.

• Romans 3:10-12 says “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside."
• Isaiah 64:7 says “There is no one who calls upon your name, who rouses himself to take hold of you."

There are many more verses throughout Scripture, but I think we can safely concede that the biblical view is that man is inherently evil and has no ability to save himself or even make a choice to save himself.

Second, we need to figure out what God says he does when he saves us. Here the evidence is also very clear. I've already addressed one verse on this topic, but I'll quote it again here because it is so vital to our understanding.

• Ephesians 1:3-5 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will."
• John 15:16 “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you."
• Ezekiel 36:26 "And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."

I could go on, but the overwhelming biblical pattern is one in which God chooses us. You'll notice that none of these verses say anything about God merely knowing what we would choose, but he takes an active role in choosing us before time. God is not passive, he is active.

Finally, I want to clarify what man's purpose here on earth is. If you look in the Westminster Catechism, which accurately sums up Scripture on this topic, it says this: "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever." This carries the implicit assumption, which is further borne out it Scripture, that God's chief purpose in everything he does is to bring himself glory. He loves people, he redeems people, but ultimately he does it to bring glory to himself since he is infinitely worthy of glory.

This, I believe, goes a long way in answering Claire's main question, which I'll restate here: Why would God create man to damn him? It really comes down to this: God created man and predestined him to sin because it would bring him greater glory to redeem them. In the gospel, he shows his wondrous love, his wrath, his mercy, his justice, and his holiness in one action. To draw sinners to himself brings him glory.

Here's my question for Claire and Karyn: if God allows humans to make independent choices that he has no control over, how is he sovereign over anything? How can he control anything that happens anywhere? If we're the ones making all the decisions, and God has nothing to do with it, then God has no ability to "work all things together for good." He is merely a passive bystander, watching and occasionally sticking his hand in when things get too out of control. One thing you said, Karyn, really scared me: "God did know that would happen, but he didn't want it to." So you're saying that something can happen contrary to the will of God? That would seem to completely deny his sovereignty.

Speaking of sticking his hand in, you did acknowledge that God does interfere sometimes. So are you saying that it is loving for him to interfere with someone's free will occasionally (as he did with Pharaoh), just not all the time? I don't quite understand that argument.

I'm also not saying that God wants men to go to hell. As you said, he loves all men and wishes for all men to be saved. However, here's the deal (and something I haven't been emphasizing like I should): although God predestines all things to happen, he also holds men accountable for their actions done by their free will (see my definition of free will back in my original post). Man chose sin, and here's the difference in the picture of salvation as seen by Calvinists and Arminians:

God stands at the door of Heaven with His arms outstretched, inviting all to come. Yet all men without exception are running in the opposite direction towards Hell as hard as they can go. So God, in election, graciously reaches out and stops this one, and that one, and this one over here, and that one over there, and effectually draws them to Himself by changing their hearts, making them willing to come. Election keeps no one out of Heaven who would otherwise have been there, but it keeps a whole multitude of folks out of Hell who would otherwise have been there! Were it not for election, Heaven would be an empty place, and Hell would be bursting at the seams!" That does put a different complexion on the thing, doesn't it? -Mark Webb

God does not save all, and he does not want any to go to Hell. But it brings him the most glory to save some instead of all. How is that? I don't know, it's one of those things I don't quite understand, but I believe it because Scripture says it's so.

Finally, I just want to address Claire's interpretation of Ephesians 1:3-5. It says nor implies nowhere in the passage that God predestines ALL of us as you said. If he did, that would mean that we have the ability to do something completely contrary to his will. We are able to contradict God. No, in the passage it gives the very clear idea that those God predestined to be adopted, he also adopted. There are no lost causes in those whom God chooses.

In your responses to this, make sure you bring it back to Scripture. Ultimately, everything that does not come back to Scripture is conjecture that means very little without solid backing. Bring me Scripture that demonstrates the fact that we all have free will of the kind you describe.

The Line Cannot Comprehend the Cube

No, this will not be an exhaustive treatise on the issue of Free Will and Election. I don't have time for that. However, I do have some thoughts that aren't mine and are quite profound. It all grew out of a conversation we were having last night during the Godspell dinner break. We began talking about this issue, and Eli quoted Randy Alcorn as saying "Free will and election are parallel lines that meet in heaven." I thought that was a profound way of saying it. I am a firm believer in the doctrine of predestination, but at the same time I believe that man does have free will. How does this work? How can I believe both? It basically comes down to two things.

First, I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. It tells us all that we need to know. I also believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. What it tells us is totally true. So the way I approach this question is as follows: 1) The Bible tells us clearly that God plans out our steps and directs our actions. But 2) the Bible also tells us clearly that we are held responsible for our actions. I know that both of these facts are completely true, but in my finite human mind I cannot completely match them up. They are an apparent contradiction, a paradox. I can work as much as possible to reconcile the two facts, but I must never downplay either fact.

Second, what I find to be the best reconciliation between the two is from Jonathan Edwards. He said (and this is a paraphrase since I can't find the exact quote), "Free will is the ability to choose that which we most desire." The definition of free will is terribly important to this whole discussion, and this is the best definition I've been able to find. Edwards goes on to explain that while we are perfectly free to choose what we most desire, because of our sinful natures we can only ever choose sin. It takes God to reach down and transform our desires so that we begin to desire good things. We don't reach for him. So we find that in this definition, we are able to uphold, to a certain extent, both free will and predestination.

This helps us to a point, but it still leaves us with questions about God authoring sin, how we still have much freedom in choosing anything, etc. Here is my very Calvinistic answer: It's a mystery to me. And I'm okay with that. My Apologetics teacher Nathan Sasser once said that Arminianism is the refuge for people afraid of mystery. They don't want to believe that there's anything they can't understand, so they've decided to play down predestination and play up free will in order for things to make sense to them. It takes a truly humble man, though, to be able to admit that he doesn't know something. That's where I stand on this and many other doctrinal topics. I seek to understand them as much as I can, but I must eventually cede that I am like a line, and God is like a cube. How can I possibly comprehend what is in a complete other dimension?