|
Jul 26
2007
|
  |
|
In my first article on this subject, I asked that we look at things from a scriptural perspective. Let me heartily echo Aaron's statement regarding the importance of knowing what scripture meant to its original readers. We do need to understand context; historical, cultural and literary, before we can understand what God meant it to say to the original hearers.
Having said that, however, let me say that there is a preponderance of scriptures taken in the correct context which speak directly to God’s causing every event to happen. It is difficult to explain away these many direct references to God’s causing both good and calamity (from our perspective) as special or abnormal interventions by God in the course of man’s history. Many learned scholars throughout history have come to the same conclusion. It seems evident that God determines the course of all events. As I said in the previous article, this causes most of us a bit of confusion and perhaps some unease.
If you desire to do more in-depth study on this subject, I would encourage you to read two books by Bruce Ware; God’s greater Glory and God’s Lesser Glory. Many of the thoughts in this article come paraphrased from him.
My primary reason for having us start with God’s Word as our foundation for this discussion has to do with the tremendous effect that our starting point has to do with the conclusions we draw. Christians of most theological perspectives would agree that for us to begin to understand the subject of God-human relationships we must try and make sense of two areas of truth; truth about God and truth about us. But there are distinct differences involving our theological framework which predetermine what conclusions we make in our theology of God.
Some begin with a “given” involving what they believe is true about human beings; that we are free to choose (libertarian freedom). This is a non-negotiable truth for those who begin here. Therefore, everything else they conclude about God and any other theological subject must be understood in a way that doesn’t contradict man’s freedom to choose. God’s sovereignty then, becomes subject to the doctrine of man’s free will.
Christians from a reformed theological tradition start with a different approach; one with which I agree. We insist that in order to understand God-human relationships we must start with God himself. We must look at God’s self-revelation to learn both the nature of His sovereignty and our capacity to choose. We do not use man’s free will as a framework to consider what God’s sovereignty can or cannot be. The only criterion for understanding what divine sovereignty is all about is this: whatever God tells us in Scripture about His lordship and sovereign rulership over the universe is what we should believe.
So, even though we referred to this previously, let’s ask again, “What does the Bible tell us about the nature of God’s sovereign rule?”
From beginning to end, the Bible encourages readers to think of God as in control of what takes place in this world; from the big to the small. The bible never minimizes the genuineness of our choices or the moral responsibility we have for the choices we make. But Scripture presents God as having ultimate and exacting control over what happens. The following passages demonstrate in sweeping language God’s sovereign control of both sides of the spectrum of life’s occurrences; both pleasant and harmful circumstances (emphasis added).
“See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god besides me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand” (Deut. 32:39)
“The Lord kills and brings to life; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and makes rich; He brings low and he exalts” (1 Sam. 2:6-7)
“Consider the work of God: who can make straight what He has made crooked? In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider; God has made the one as well as the other, so that man may not find out anything that will be after him” (Eccl. 7:13-14)
“I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things” (Isa. 45:5-7)
“Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord commanded it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? (Lam. 3:37-38)
We will discuss the moral implications of these statements in the next article. But, even if we can’t understand how God controls both good and evil without being morally compromised, these verses affirm unambiguously that God does control both. In fact to deny God’s control of both in these texts is to deny God’s claim to be God, because He uses these statements of His control to demonstrate that He is indeed the only true and living God!
Since God makes these statements, apparently He does not share whatever concern we may have to try and remove the control of evil from our perspective of God. In fact, He seems to have bent over backwards in these statements to affirm that He controls both good and evil! Again, if we have predetermined that mankind has complete free will or that it is morally impossible for God to control both good and evil, then we cannot accept these verses at face value. My appeal is that we begin with whatever God says about Himself, period.
We will try and unpack this a bit more after I get back from the Philippines but let me close with one more truth foundational to our understanding of God and His sovereignty. God is transcendent; in other words, God does not need us or anything that we have to offer. There is only one who deserves glory and that is God. The universes, and our, only role in the outworking of God’s purposes is to exist to the glory of His name. We don’t get to define the terms of God’s relationship with us. He gets to define the terms of what a real relationship with God actually is and how it works.
Rather humbling isn’t it? This is usually the place of difficulty we all face in our struggle to understand God. If it involves me not being in control or me being used for God’s ultimate purposes whether I want to or not, my pride quails. But then, I suppose since in order to be received in relationship with God it is required that we are humble; that is a good place to start.
See you in three weeks,
Tim
written by Bryan Hansen , August 02, 2007
C.S. Lewis once said that "Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period." In a similar way, this is the approach we should take when consulting "the scholars" or comentaries on the Bible--especially those of another era. They help us see through different lenses than our own. I just got a new pair of glasses. I had no idea how dirty and scratched the other ones were until I put on the new ones. In a similar way, looking at biblical texts through other people's eyes can help us see more thoroughly what a text means and how it might apply to our lives. But the caution Jack speaks of is well warranted--we can become so enamored by the view we now see through these new glasses that we neglect to read our bibles and spend more time in books about them. C.S. Lewis also said "It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that first hand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire." May this be true of us and our Bibles.
written by Jack Harding , August 01, 2007
I really appreciate Tim's perspective on this. Man what a great blog to exchange idea's and Biblical truth.
The cool thing I like to remember (and share a lot) is that the Bible IS the answer book. It IS the word of God. Whenever we get into a bible study we should start there and end there. It's fine to review the opinion and finding of scholors but we have to bring that back to the word of God and test it. When we test, it needs to be a consistant test. We can't pick a verse here or there and rest assured that our perspective is proven. We need to ensure that the postion we take is consistent with the whole of scripture.
written by Bryan Hansen , July 31, 2007
As I have wrestled through this issue, there is at least one line of thinking that has helped me understand my own will. Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, Martin Luther and John Piper have all aided in clarifying "The Will" for me.
Augustine said something along the lines of: "We are free to do what we like, but we are not free to like what we ought to like."
His point is that every decision we make is not a truly "free" decision, but one that is always bound (not free) to our desires. Our desires govern what we choose. We will never choose something that we don't, in some way, desire above every other thing. For example, Blaise Pascal once said: ""All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even those who hang themselves." There is a motive behind every action. We are free to act according to that motive, but that motive is bent toward a particular desire.
Jonathan Edwards made a distinction between moral and natural ability that is helpful. John Piper summarizes it in a rather lengthy (but good) article addressing this topic in his response to one of the chapters in J.I. Packer's book "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God". The article in it's entirety can be read at http://www.desiringgod.org/Res...nsibility/
It is not easy to read and understand at first, but meditate on it and you can get it. It isn't like reading the comics, that's for sure. But take it a phrase at a time and you'll get it. The passage that is particularly relevant to Edwards begins "First, Edwards argues that the thing which determines what the will chooses is not the will itself but rather motives which come from outside the will." Read through the few paragraphs that follow in that article to get the whole of the argument.
The way I paraphrase it is like this...
I can choose to physically eat cooked spinach. But I cannot choose to like it, even if I choke it down. My motive in eating it may be to save my life if I am starving to death, or win a bet (if someone is willing to pay me enough) or maybe even to prove a point (like I have the freedom to do whatever I want to do). But the truth remains: I despise cooked spinach.
In a similar way, we may "choose" Jesus and church and all that goes with it. But the bible teaches that no one seeks God--that is, finds him "delicious"--apart from God doing a work in his heart to find him so (Rom 3:9-18, 8:7, John 6:44). A man may "choose" God, but that does not mean that he "wants" God. He may want good friends, or a good wife, or a better philosophy of life, or to feel as though he is living better, or want to be free from guilt, or escape hell. All of those are reasons to "choose" God. But they use God to achieve an end that is not God. This is what Jesus so forcefully blasted the Pharisees for over and over again. They used God to get what they wanted, so they acted in all the right ways according to the law. But Jesus came and turned it upside down and dug deeper at motives. He redefined adultery and murder according to motives and intentions of the heart--not according to the physical acts.
We have no "free will" in this sense, to choose to want God. Only through a working of God can the "want to" align with the "ought to". Our inability to want God does not get us off the hook. Rather, it shows us just how bad off we are. But the beauty of the gospel is that God hears the agonizing cries of those who call out in desperation to him to save them from this very thing--and he does it!
