How Can God Be Glorified Through Limited Human Will?

Unless someone has printed this out, you are reading this online. There's a title in bold at the top of the page. Above that, there are various other links, titles and information. Look to the side and you might see a photo of me with a link to learn more about who I am. There may be a whole list of links to other places on the internet over there too. Look at the bottom and you might see some other stuff. Other articles, comments, perhaps a hit counter. You may see some commercials my hosts have decided to attach to my page to offset the cost of giving me license to post articles such as this one at no cost to me. You may see a nice background and some colorful adornment to the page.

All this is nice and there's a certain reality to it, but it's a bit of an illusion. Obviously, the light that forms the image of this "page" is generated by the monitor, and the information used to tell the monitor how to do this is a bit of electronic code. But what the computer has downloaded is not what is displayed necessarily. Most people are using a browser to view this page that is capable of showing you the source text that describes how this page is to be displayed on your monitor. This source text as well as all the referenced images is what was actually downloaded. In the browser I currently use, FireFox, I can click on the "View" menu and click on "Page Source" down at the bottom. If you look at this source, this looks nothing like what is actually showing on your browser. Yet this is required for your browser to display what you do see. It is descriptive of what is shown.

If you change something in the source text, it may affect what you see in your browser. You can't change what is displayed in your browser unless the source text describes that capacity to change what is displayed. Nothing in the source text is affected by what is displayed in the browser, but everything displayed in the browser is affected by the source text.

This is metaphorical. God is the writer of the source text which he has written with the finished display in mind. The source text is the spiritual world. What is displayed in the browser is the physical world. This physical world as we experience it has a sense of reality, but is largely an illusion. It is representative of the spiritual world, which is a greater reality. Truth comes from God through the spiritual world to the physical world.

God has created us as characters in his creation. He has given us free will described in the spiritual world and manifested in the physical world. His own will is not so described in the spiritual world, for he is greater than the spiritual world having created the spiritual world though he himself is spirit. We have been told that he has created the heavens and the earth. He is eternal and there are even temporal aspects to the spiritual world. I said all this to set up this passage:

1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 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. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 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— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 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.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 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?” 21 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? 22 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, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” 29 And as Isaiah predicted,

“If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah.” (Romans 9:1-29, ESV)

I have heard arguments from non-Calvinists that seem to me would be easily answered by this passage.

"But God wants us to love him and we can't do that if we're just automatons, right? It's more meaningful if we choose him."
"We can't be held guilty of breaking the law when we don't have free will, so God would be unjust sending anyone to hell."

Such arguments presuppose false ideas of such concepts as will, love and justice.

Human will is prescribed by God. He created the behavior of the will according to physical forces such as hormones and other biological proclivities; temporal knowledge including education, social pressures and familial normalities; and spiritual revelation including creativity and our deepest intentions (the balance between whether one really wants to know the truth of a matter or distort the truth in the interest of self-justification). God made the rules governing human will and all the information fed into the human will. There is nothing new under the sun. We have no original thoughts. Within the constraints of God's created order human will is free to act, and God's created order is huge. But our will does not trump God's created order.

Love is ultimately God's eternal cohesion. God is amazingly detailed to the extent where in that we discern him by analysis, the particulars of his character are always in complete agreement. We can point to theological tension, but any consideration that theological tension is contradictory is an illusion brought on by the sin of this world. Rather, theological tension serves to validate the revelation of God and give those so inclined points of focus for greater understanding of God's character. God's love manifests itself throughout his created order in such elements as mutual submission, sacrifice, reconciliation and justice.

Justice is the proper response to God's law. God's law is his boundaries. It serves as a general revelation of God to the world. If you are within God's boundaries, you have life. If you are outside of God's boundaries, you are dead. That's justice. Life and death have physical and spiritual manifestations. Following or breaking the law physically is a behavioral matter. But the law is spiritual where our deepest intentions have their place. In that regard, we cannot have good intentions without the Spirit of God moving in the heart of our will. Although our lesser intentions may be inclined toward some natural moral law, we may not yet ultimately be inclined toward God. And, as he did with Pharaoh by hardening his heart, these lesser inclinations can be affected by God. Yet we shall not say that God causes us to sin though he gives any of us over to our sin. Rather, we are dead in sin outside of God or dead to our sin in God. This is evident in our behavior whether as believers we show true contrition with regard to our sin and attribute any righteousness to God or as unfaithful to deny both our sin and the righteousness of God.

So then, the unfaithful glorify God by incurring his wrath in judgment and the faithful glorify God by receiving his grace as Christ bore the wrath of God for us. In all ways God is glorified, but for the faithful the glory of god is preeminent even beyond salvation. And by glorifying God we grow in faith as Abraham did: "No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God." (Romans 4:20, ESV)

Therefore we participate in love with God through the submission of our will to him being so inclined by the Holy Spirit and thereby know his grace afforded by the blood of Christ.

And God is glorified.

Beneficial Faith and the Gospel of Christ

I've seen a lot of blogs posting links to this remarkable article written by Matthew Parris, an atheist, entitled As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God. Read the whole article. I want to cite some of what he wrote:

The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.

Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.

Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.

He observes that Christian faith liberates the mind. However, he is unwilling to himself have that freedom for his own mind. It's one thing to acknowledge the truth. It's another thing to think the truth applies to you. The man has a faith of sorts and acknowledges it as such:

It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

What's more astonishing is that he recognizes that the Christian faith is spiritual, real, and good:

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

Umm. If it's spiritual, real and good then why not have it? This leads me to an observation. If knowing and believing isn't enough to have faith, then we must conclude that faith comes from some other source. Is it that he has simply choosen not to have faith? I imagine that he simply doesn't believe that God exists. At this point a toughtful atheist can't argue that faith is a product of evolution; otherwise we'd all have faith. While he accurately observes that faith in Africa is spread through the missionaries who bring the gospel of Christ, he himself doesn't have this faith. Presenting the information isn't sufficient for producing faith. It's like pointing out all the people who have died of emphysema to a smoker who already has a bad cough and watching the smoker himself become diagnosed with emphysema and continue to smoke until his lungs are too weak to take a drag. The truth is evident and the evidence abundant, even in the life of the atheist. So, why not have faith while one can?

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. Romans 12:3

Faith is a gift of God.

Solomon's Justice: Kill the Baby

1 Kings 3:16-28

We all know the story:

Solomon prays for wisdom. Then he has this case where two women are fighting over a baby. His solution is to cut the baby in half. One woman says to go ahead and do it. The other begs Solomon not to kill the baby, but she would give up the baby so he could live. So Solomon gives the baby to the woman who would give him up for his life.

What kind of man would propose killing a baby out of a spirit of fairness?

This actually isn't a post about Barak Obama's stated policies, although I could go there.

No. Rather, turn to Exodus 32.

[Edit: I added this summary of Exodus 32.]

The Israelites make a golden calf and worship it while Moses is on the mountain talking to God. God tells Moses to leave Him so He can wipe out the Israelites and start over with Moses. Moses argues that everything God did to glorify himself in Egypt would be for naught if that happened. So God refrains from killing the Israelites. Moses goes down the mountain, grinds up the calf into water and makes everyone drink it. Then he has the Levites go out and kill 3000 people. Moses then goes back up the mountain and begs God to forgive the Israelites and if He won't, then to judge Moses along with them. God condemns only those who have sinned and sends a plague on the Israelites.

The Creator of the universe can do with His creation what He wants. Some may have a problem with God wanting to destroy all His people and start over with Moses, but if you actually believe in a divine Creator, then how could you have a problem with it? Where most people stumble in this account is on verses 11-14 where Moses apparently causes God to change His mind. Open theists answer this by claiming that God really doesn't know everything. Other libertarian free-willers answer this different ways. For example, they may say that God does know everything, but that He "limits Himself." It brings into question God's immutability.

Did Solomon actually intend to kill the innocent baby in order to judge fairly between the women? No. That's silly. I supposed they believed he would actually do it, but you don't kill an innocent person in the spirit of fairness. For Solomon, he never intended to kill the baby. He intended to discover who the real mother was, or at least who would be a good mother to the baby.

Why do we read that God "repented"? To say that God "repented" is an anthropomorphism. Where there is ever an apparent choice to make, there can only be one choice made. God's anthropomorphic repentance is what Moses needed to embolden him to accomplish God's purpose. It was part of God's whole presentation to him. God is not so ignorant a Creator to fail to plan, or even merely know, the outcome. Why else would God threaten to kill the Israelites if He knew that He would "repent" of it?

God never intended to kill all the Israelites.

Did God lie when He threatened to kill the Israelites? Did Solomon lie when He threatened to kill the baby? Technically no. They both gave good laweresque statements.

Solomon: 24 And the king said, "Bring me a sword." So a sword was brought before the king. 25 And the king said, "Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other."

God: 9 And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you."

Solomon's statement was an order that could be rescinded. It was not a statement of intent.

God's statement was conditional on Moses leaving Him alone.

Solomon's intent was to determine who the mother was.

God's intent was to teach Moses not to leave Him.

Solomon's tactic required that the true mother be willing to give of herself for another.

God's tactic eventually required Moses to offer himself up for judgment along with Israel. (v 32)

In both cases, the requirement was an act of constrained will against a previous desire. The mother desired to have the baby, but the baby's well-being was more important. Moses desired God's forgiveness, but not at the expense of God's righteous judgment and His glory.

Both Solomon and God achieved their goals.

God will achieve His goals in us. Praise Him to His glory.

Building an Understanding of Baptist Calvinism

I’ve been listening to some of the podcasts of the Building Bridges Conference at Ridgecrest last week. Today, I’ve been working through Malcolm Yarnell’s talk on “Calvinism: A Cause for Rejoicing, A Cause for Concern”. He is a non-Calvinist. I appreciate his comments. I think he has dealt fairly with Calvinism for the most part. There are a couple of issues that he brings up that gives me cause to address – perhaps not his own misunderstanding, but certainly the misunderstanding of many non-Calvinists.

He defined the five points of “Classical Calvinism”. To be sure, I don’t see much of a distinction between his definition of Classic Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism. Nevertheless, the five points he gives are these:

Unconditional predestination
Limited or particular atonement
Total human corruption
Irresistible grace
Preservation.

He stated:

“Fisher Humphreys is correct when he notes, ‘anyone who accepts unconditional predestination should have no trouble accepting the other four ideas as they follow naturally from unconditional predestination.’ …By unconditional predestination, classical Calvinism understands not only positive election which scripture definitely affirms, but also negative reprobation which is their mere logical supposition. After the line is crossed into philosophical theology with speculation regarding the divine decrees, there is little holding the Christian theologian back from embracing the soteriological doctrine of Classical Calvinism in its entirety."

Note the sentence I highlighted. One of the complaints I hear from non-Calvinists is that if God elected some to heaven, then you would have to conclude that He elected some to hell. A typical response from a thoughtful Calvinist is that we are already doomed to hell, but the elect are saved by grace. This is not a bad answer.

However, the non-Calvinist qualm employs the deductive “denying the antecedent” fallacy. The syllogism is thus: If I am elect by God to eternal life, then I am not elect by God to go to hell. I am elect by God to eternal life. Therefore, I am not elect by God to go to hell. It is incorrect to conclude that I am elect by God to go to hell if it is given that I am not elect by God to eternal life. The question begged is either that the syllogism is equivalent – namely, “I am elect by God to eternal life if and only if I am not elect by God to go to hell”. However, scripture nowhere affirms that people are condemned to hell because God elected them to it or chose them for hell from the foundations of the earth. Scripture indeed affirms election and predestination for salvation. Therefore, my original syllogism is the scripturally accurate one.

In this case, I think Malcolm Yarnell and I would agree. What troubles me is that too often non-Calvinists assume that Calvinists in general believe in election to hell because the non-Calvinists apply this faulty logic to the doctrine of election.

He makes this next comment by way of illustrating non-Calvinistic missional roots among Southern Baptists:

“..the Hyper Calvinist argument that faith is only available to those possessing a warrant to believe. To argue like the Hyper Calvinists that sinners should not be freely offered the gospel nor invited to respond with faith and repentance is anathema to a missionary Baptist. For instance, Texas union Baptists adopted articles of faith that have been interpreted as Arminian. "We believe that Christ died for sinners and that the sacrifice which He has made has so honored the divine law that the way of salvation is consistently opened up to every sinner to whom the gospel is sent and that nothing but their voluntary rejection of the gospel prevents their salvation." While the claim that such a statement is necessarily Arminian is doubtful, it is definitely not a Calvinist sentiment.”

 
He also offered a similar statement from Massachusetts. But what I find striking I that aside from the question of a couple of terms, this is not overly non-Calvinist. If it is non-Calvinist, then the only reason I could see why it would be worded so is that there were plenty of Calvinists at the time and the need was felt by non-Calvinists to overreact to some Calvinists who perhaps did have a heretical brand of Calvinism.

The two terms that are dubious here are “opened up” and “voluntary”. Do the writers of this statement mean to indicate that the gospel should be presented to all people or that Christ’s atonement was made for all people. Given the context, I would say the former. If the latter is the intended meaning, then a particular soteriology rather than missiology is being recommended. There is a difference.

The second term “voluntary” is not adverse to Calvinism. Our volition is certain, but dependent on second causes rather than possessing the capacity to be an agent of first causation. All first causation is necessarily unified as eternal. We are saved by faith. Our possession of faith is of second causes. The faithful respond to possession by the Holy Spirit – an eternal agent of first cause. The lack of faith is not an act of volition but rather is exhibited behaviorally. Faith is active while the lack of faith is passive. Behaviors that result in a lack of faith are active. We are responsible for our behaviors. Where there is no faith, we are condemned by our behaviors. Where there is faith, the penalty warranted by our behaviors is atoned for by Christ – an eternal agent of first cause. Therefore, the volition of our faith, while not an autonomous agent of first cause, is freed from responding only to our depravity. We may now respond directly to agents of first cause.

So where does missiology come into play? Why do we have the Great Commission? God can come to people in visions. He still does so today. However, He has made it clear to us that He desires to use us as His second-cause agents of His first-cause activity in the temporal manifestation of the calling of His elect. It is this purpose and command to which we must be obedient. We must proclaim the true gospel and leave it to God to quicken the hearts of men as a matter of first cause. He has given us over to reason that our faith may be shown to be reasonable. He is glorified not only in the response of our second-cause volition to His first-cause quickening, but that our faith may be reinforced with the certainty of the truth and the unfaithful provided with no excuse. Wheat and tares are planted in the same soil.

Malcolm Yarnell further stated:

“With such a history behind Southern Baptists it should be clear that the SBC may be willing to tolerate Baptist Calvinism, and I would argue should be willing to have Baptist Calvinists as brethren in our churches. Classical Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism are singularly unwelcome.”

This is a welcome statement. His gave particular definitions of Classical Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. There’s apparently a very fine historical distinction. However, I must have missed an elucidation on what he considers acceptable Calvinism. I can think of it, but I’m more concerned for the non-Calvinists who can’t.

He gave three reasons why “the non-Calvinist outlook will continue...”:

1) Southern Baptists are committed to foreign missions.

2) In their own nations, cities and home towns Southern Baptists have greatly emphasized evangelism and church growth.

3) A dispensational view of eschatology which enjoys popularity across the SBC is generally not compatible with Calvinistic theology.

What I have to note is that if missions, evangelism and eschatology are reasons why a non-Calvinistic soteriology will persist, then it is because there is a lack of understanding among many Southern Baptists who incorrectly link a lack of missions, a lack of evangelism and amillennialism with a Calvinist soteriology. In other words, these are not glowing reasons. They speak of a glaring need for improved theological equipping among Southern Baptists in general.

For the record, the reason I, a Southern Baptist who holds to a Calvinistic soteriology, didn't go the 80 miles down the road to the Conference is because it happenned inthe middle of the week. To be sure, I could take vacation days to go. However, I'm saving as many vacation days as possible to do more mission work next summer.

Finally, Malcolm Yarnell gave five benefits and concerns about Calvinism:

1) Calvinism takes Christological Orthodoxy seriously. However, Baptists focus on demonstrable faith.

And Calvinists do not focus on demonstrable faith?

2) Calvinists hold a high view of the Bible. However, the non-Calvinists suspect that Calvinism is a system that is not particularly Biblical, but more philosophical. Must "rightly divide the truth", but not continue to divide it ad infinitum. Some forms of Calvinism, not all, are simply not Biblical enough.

Some forms of non-Calvinism are not Biblical enough. As for being philosophical inasmuch as we are all theologians we are also all philosophers. It is more fruitful to talk about presuppositions. There are theological conclusions that are true and theological conclusions that are false. Likewise, there are philosophical presuppositions that are true and philosophical presuppositions that are false. Calvinists are no more philosophical than non-Calvinists. The question is what presuppositions are true.

3) Calvinists are serious about the gospel. Spurgeon's Calvinism pursues the gospel, but not all forms of Calvinism do. The Classical Calvinist doctrine of salvation is confusing and troubling because they seem to deny the need to repent. Calvinists make a distinction between common grace and special grace, but folk theologians do not because they cannot find it in the Bible. "Non-Calvinist Baptists would call our Calvinist Baptist brethren to reject clearly and permanently the speculative doctrines insofar as they detract from the clear presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

What is “troubling” is the speculative use of “confusing” and “seem to” as well as a reference to “folk theologians”. What is he talking about? The reason anyone would not find something in the Bible is that their presuppositions preclude a clear understanding. The doctrine of the trinity is not in the Bible any more than, say, limited atonement. God is not mentioned in the book of Esther. However, God is evident in the book of Esther, the doctrine of the trinity is evident from Genesis to Revelation and limited atonement is likewise as clear.

Another thing that is “troubling” is his reference to the “clear presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” What is sufficiently “clear”? Is it clear enough if the gospel is rejected? What if we are explaining the gospel to someone with impeded mental faculties who cannot understand penal substitution? Should we compromise penal substitution in order to present a gospel that is more understandable? We must communicate the gospel to the best of our ability with as much an understanding of our audience as possible. However, the theology of the gospel must not be compromised for some misperceived level of clarity.

4) Calvinists have been at the forefront of ecclesiological reform. However, the Calvinist teaching of the "invisible church" goes against Baptist congregationalism. Calvinists are to thank for Baptist "historiology". However, they emphasize the history of Baptist Calvinism at the expense of Baptist non-Calvinists.

I have to be honest. I don’t understand precisely what he means by “invisible church”. I know what I would mean if I used that term and what I would mean if I used that term doesn’t contradict congregational ecclesiology. In fact, it would support it. “Invisible” speaks of the fact that our association with true Christians outside of our local congregation transcends any imposed man-made hierarchical ecclesiological government. Looking at how God has revealed Himself throughout history and in the images in prophesy, the parables of Christ and the examples of Paul, God likes to spell things out in simple terms. The microcosm of the local congregation should be a picture of the church at large. That doesn’t defeat congregationalism in the least.

5) Calvinists are good at encouraging genuine Christian living particularly in criticizing the invitation or the altar call. However, there is a need for a public display of one's faith.

Look at the benefit here of encouraging genuine Christian living versus the concern from the first issue. I’m probably just missing something, but these don’t seem to jive. Indeed, he specifies the “invitation” or “altar call” here. As far as that goes, I’ve seen the opposite. I’ve defended the use of the invitation in the face of criticism from non-Calvinists. As such, he may be alluding back to some historic hyper-Calvinists, but I don’t see this at all today among Baptists.

In all, I appreciate his comments. He was exceedingly fair and gracious in his treatment and my commentary here is merely my thoughts as I listened to him. It seems that there remains much that non-Calvinists do not understand of Calvinism. Being a professor of theology, he had a better understanding of Calvinism than most non-Calvinists I know. As long as we seek a greater understanding and to agree on the important issues of the authority and accuracy of the revelation given in the text of the Holy Scriptures, the full gospel of Jesus Christ and the call to righteousness even to the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will be unified in Christ.

Who Should Have Grace?

A good quote by Jeff Noblit at the Building Bridges conference in Ridgecrest, NC:

"Those of us who hold to the doctrines of grace* should have some."

A hearty "Amen" from this 5-pointer.

* "doctrines of grace" refers to Reformed theology or Calvinism in particular.