|
I'm journaling my way through Paul's letter to the Christians in the city of Rome. Chapter 9 of Romans is a largely controversial chapter that seems to indicate that God chooses those who go to heaven and those who will go to hell. The below paper I wrote in 2010 on that subject. I've posted a second time today to include a quote by Horatius Bonar (19 December 1808 – 31 May 1889). |
|
Elected to Eternal
Life
|
|
A Discussion on
Divine Providence
|
|
|
|
Dale Paul
Sickels
|
|
THEO 350 D04
|
|
|
One of the
longest running theological discussions in the Christian faith is that of the
extent of God’s sovereignty, or providence.
On one side church fathers such as Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Whitefield
have preached that God ordains every event of history to include electing
specific persons to salvation and the rest for damnation. On the other side of the argument are men
such as Pelagius, Erasmus, Arminius, and Wesley who believe God has given
mankind free will and then ordained that will to (in a way) cooperate in salvation.[1] Both sides have extreme sects and many
Christians, if determined enough to become engaged in the discussion, are left
wandering through the middle ground unsure of where the disagreement even lies. It is this essay’s purpose to cover some of
the key beliefs and passages of Scripture concerning this topic in order to show
the author’s position that God indeed acts in a sovereign way to bring history
to pass and to grant redemption to a select number of people.
Theological Position
My understanding
of Scripture’s position on God’s sovereignty is that, first and foremost, God has
created all that exists for His purposes and directs events that occur within
that creation to a specific end. At the
same time, man has free will; however, it is limited in a way that it cannot
hinder any part of God’s plan. I believe
the Bible clearly teaches both facts and that they are compatible. To begin, one very important truth must be
understood.
God’s
Character Determines Truth
An over-arching
doctrine that must govern the discussion of providence is God’s character. God is complete, lacking nothing and needing
nothing. For this reason He declares to
Moses “I AM WHO I AM,” (Ex. 3:14). [2] God had no need for relationship, no need to
create mankind or the universe which mankind inhabits. Prior to the creation God existed in
perfection and wholeness. This may lead
us to rightly ask why He created at all.
If it was not for a need and it was not for an unmet desire, then what? I can think of only one response to that
question: God, being completely sovereign, created for the purpose of
accomplishing His purpose. That statement,
while circular, demonstrates another indispensible truth – God has no
cause. The implications to the answer
are clear; He created because He willed to.
The existence of the cosmos and its creatures were brought about by His choice,
or as Phil. 2:13 says “His good purpose.”
God’s
Sovereignty is Complete
As stated, God’s
sovereignty is undeniable and evident in both the NT and OT. God does whatever He desires and all that He
plans comes to pass (Ps. 135:6, Isa. 14:24, 27). He controls nations, rulers, and individuals
(Job 14:5, Prov. 21:1, Ps. 135:8).[3] The fact that God claims the authority and
right to do as He pleases regardless of man’s lack of understanding of God’s
purpose is clear in the book of Genesis.
There we see God selecting Isaac over Ishmael (Gen. 17:18, 19), Jacob
over Esau (Gen. 25:23), and Ephraim over Manasseh (Gen. 48:14-20). In the NT believers are said to be God’s
chosen or elect. The Greek word, which is
translated “chosen” or “elect,” is used 23 times in the NT with 21 of those
uses applying to believers.[4] Possibly the greatest and least debatable
support for God sovereignty is the appointment and promise of a remnant
throughout the OT. Joseph identifies
that he was God’s tool for preserving a remnant. 2 King 19:30 says that “the zeal of the Lord”
will raise up a remnant of Judah. Isaiah
11:11 says God will restore the remnant of Israel. Isaiah 46:3 say that the
remnant was “born by [God] from before [their] birth … .” Is it possible for God to ensure a remnant
without controlling all things? Can God
confidently declare that there always will be some who believe? And lest this be trivialized as simply an
example of God’s general control over historical events, Paul states in Romans
11:4-6 that God has continued that “remnant” in the body of Christ. This is, I believe, an insurmountable
obstacle to maintaining the complete and uninhibited free will of man.
Man’s
Sinfulness is Complete
The next scripturally
demonstrated point is man’s complete sinfulness and helplessness. Calvinism calls this Total Depravity, which
means that man is completely lost apart from God’s intervention.[5] The Bible says that no one seeks God (Rom.
3:10, 23). All mankind is guilty before
God (Rom. 3:20) and therefore deserves nothing but judgment from God (Gal.
3:10). By nature men “suppress the truth
in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). John’s
gospel declares that we refuse to come to the light because we must keep our
evil deeds in the dark (John 3:19-21).
Mankind does not come to salvation or God of himself, and that is why
salvation is strictly of faith and not works, and even our faith is a gift from
God (Eph. 2:8, 9).
Man’s
Will is Limited
A look at the
true state of things reveals that man has a will and is able to make
decisions. However, because the Bible
says that we can do nothing to interfere with or impede God’s will, the only
logical conclusion is to see that while God has afforded mankind a limited free
will, He retains complete control over all things, including the control (or
influence) of individuals. This will be
demonstrated more clearly later.
Resulting
Scriptural Conclusion
Upon the
foundation of God’s complete sovereignty and man’s limited will and state of corruption,
it seems clear that salvation can only be of grace, and faith is only granted
by God to those who He intends for salvation.
This fact is revealed in every step of salvation. We know that all truth is revealed by God
alone according to grace (Matt. 16:16).
When the gospel is heard, if it is His will, God brings spiritual life
where deadness has resided. That which
was dead is brought back to life.[6] This is what Paul meant when he wrote “… not
by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He
saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit”
(Titus 3:5). I believe that John 1:13
indicates the new birth and regeneration are also God’s will and
accomplishment. Romans 9:15, 16 continue
this thought by declaring that God does whatever He wants, to include the
determination of people toward destruction or redemption.[7] John MacArthur summarily states in his
exegesis on Romans 9 that “election unto spiritual life is unrelated to any
human effort and is based only on the prerogative of God, who makes His
selection.”[8] Despite apparent conflict, Scripture seems to
testify that this is true.
Interaction with the Opposing View
The
soteriology of the opposition.
It should be
noted that objectors to complete sovereignty have a complete systematic
theology. Concerning the work of
salvation, their position can be stated summarily as follows. First, the concept of free will does not mean
that mankind attains salvation. God has accomplished all that needs to be
done in order for a person to respond in belief to the truth of the
gospel. Mankind has been given a
conscience and natural revelation, which together testify of the truth of
God. Additionally, the Holy Spirit is in
the world convicting mankind of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John
16:8). Finally, the witnessing to the
lost by a believer becomes the seed from which specific revelation is made
known.[9] So a non-Calvinist simply believes that when
given all the true facts of God’s might and man’s deplorableness, man has the
ability to choose.
In this way, I
agree with the opposing view because it gives all credit to God. The entire salvation process becomes of God –
His sacrifice, His word, His pursuing of us by grace, and His convicting. Once their broken and helpless position is
recognized a person may then respond in belief to faith (brought about by God). Ultimately while this theory is coherent
within itself, it does not take the entirety of Scripture into account. I think a true, balanced perspective on
witnessing and salvation is stated by Richardson and Chamblin: “the preaching
of the gospel and the elective purpose of God always go together. In conversion, the preaching by human
instrumentalities is a direct means. And only those who respond to it in
faith may claim to be the recipient of the electing grace of God.”[10]
What
about the law?
The Arminian’s
questions concerning providence and God’s sovereignty are not without
warrant. One point of debate between
Luther and Erasmus concerned the purpose of the law. Erasmus believed there was no point in God
giving the law, or any command, if mankind was unable to keep the
commands. Luther’s response, according
to Lutzer, was that the law wasn’t given for the purpose of obedience, but for
revelation of man’s inability to do anything good.[11] Lutzer then reminds of Galatians 3:22-27
which specifically says that the law was meant to “drive us to Christ.”[12] Ironically, the same verse may be used as
evidence for free will. The intended
response to the law is humility and identification of complete need. Both of those are conscious decisions. In our daily experience, we respond to
humility in two ways: either we seek help or we harden their hearts, passing
the blame to everything around us and deny our need. The only difference is a choice. This is why Gal. 3:22-27 says what it
does. My response to this is
demonstrated by two verses: Romans 3:19 and 20, “Now we know that whatever the
law says it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be
stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. … for by the law is
the knowledge of sin” and Romans 5:20, “Moreover, the law entered that the
offense might abound … .” So, we see
that the purpose of the law was not that we should obey it, but that God may be
declared as righteous and mankind as unrighteous.
What
about context?
Another
objection is the controversial chapter of Romans 9, which Richard and Knox call
“the hardest chapter in the Bible.”[13] It
is always vital that context rules when interpreting God’s word. A non-Calvinist may point to the context of
Romans 9 for justification of free will because the chapter is bookended by references
to man’s free will. Paul states in 9:2
and 3, “that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart” because he
desired his physical countrymen to be saved and he repeats this prayer in 10:1. This hope of Paul’s indicates his belief that
those who will accept the gospel are not predetermined; a willful choice is
involved. Indeed, Paul continues the
discussion in Romans 10 saying, “For with the heart one believes … with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation (10:10)” and “How then shall they call
on Him in whom they have not believed?
And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard
(10:14)?” A second aspect of this is why
Paul would have any remorse of Israel’s rejection if He knew full-well that
they were obviously not of the elect. While
these are valid calls to context, I don’t think the overall truth of God’s
sovereignty as described throughout Scripture can be dismissed on these
grounds. As stated before, the conflict
between perceived or real free will need not be entirely comprehended if God is
left to be God.
Another
contextual objection can be raised over Paul’s choice of OT references: Jacob’s
and Esau’s “election” and the hardening of Pharaoh in Exodus. The objection here is that providence centers
on soteriology and the doctrine of salvation, which is not the subject of those
two examples in their OT context. While that
is true about the context of the history of Jacob and Esau, the point remains
that God was selecting, ordering, and determining specific events of history in
a way that required surety over an infinite amount of decisions made by Rebekah
and Jacob so that God’s plan might extend down through the ages resulting in
the sacrifice of Jesus. Such an outcome is
very unlikely if they were free to choose any course available, let alone the
plethora of people included in the lineage of Jesus listed in Matthew’s gospel.
Likewise, in the
example of the Pharaoh, the spiritual implications are silent, but the
sovereignty of God is consistent and clear.
The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart occurs 14 times in the Exodus narrative. God is said to harden Pharaoh’s heart six
times, Pharaoh hardens his own heart three times and in the remaining five
times it is simply stated as fact, attributed to neither God nor Pharaoh. Despite the work being attributed to both parties,
God is the first cause of the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart. God claims responsibility through Moses’
hand. This truth becomes confusing
because it seems to say that God causes sin.
In order to align this fact with God’s sinless character we must
consider this thought. It is understandable
how a person hardens his or her own heart, but by what means does God do so? To take one rational and important step further
does God need to do anything to
harden someone’s heart? The Calvinistic
approach to Providence says “no.”[14] An example will assist in understanding this
problem. A pilot may say “I’m going to crash
my plane,” but he does not need to do anything to make that happen. A plane will plummet if he does nothing to
prevent it from dropping to the earth.
In the same manner, humans, when left alone, degenerate in their sinful rebellion
in greater and deeper ways (Romans 1:18-32).
To put it another way, no man seeks God without the mercy and grace of
God. Therefore, God can allow and even
intend sin without being the originator of it.
What
about clear evidence of free will?
It seems a
discussion of sovereignty and soteriology inevitably involves man’s free
will. While I strive diligently to
accept a plain reading of God’s word, I cannot help but ask why, if God chooses
who will believe and who will not, are we faced each day with choice, free
will, and decisions. Why does God ever
say, “that [we] should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance”
(Acts 26:20) or “if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves,
and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear
from heaven, and will forgive their sins and heal their land” (2 Chr.
7:14)? If mankind is unable to choose
the gospel, then we are commanded on one hand to make a decision, but
completely unable to do it on the other.
Through the research and study of this subject, I have returned
repeatedly to this fact: when all of
Scripture is taken into account the evidence is overwhelming – God is
sovereign. The only question that
remains is “Why?” Why would God do these
things? How is this considered “good” by
God? Why is salvation a possession of some
but not all? Unfortunately for mankind,
(unfortunate, at least, speaking in limited human terms) that is the one
question that has no justification in being asked. It seems that God, for reasons of His own,
shows greater mercy and grace on some individuals allowing them to turn to
him. In that way, the free will of man
exists, but strictly according to God’s will.[15] If we take ourselves completely out of the
picture and think of God as He was prior to creation it becomes clear that He
can do as He wills without question or reproach. Ultimately, one must find rest in the power
of God, and agree with Romans 9:20: “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply
against God? Will the thing formed say
to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’”
Responses
to Opposing Scriptural Support
God’s
power is not limited.
Non-Calvinists point
to several Scriptures for support.
Possibly the strongest one is 1 Tim 2:4.
Calvinists believe that holding to this verse limits God’s power by
humanity’s free-will. After all, if
God’s desire is for “all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the
truth” why aren’t more (indeed, all)
saved?[16] Arminians disagree saying that God’s power is
in no way limited by the allowance of will, because God would not overpower
man’s will unless asked to for “God gives grace to the humble (James
4:6).” My response to any limiting of
God’s sovereignty is the same. It is
beyond understanding how God can control anything if He doesn’t control
everything. As mentioned above, I
believe that man’s will extends only so far.
As Luther wrote, “… he who hesitates not to depend wholly upon the
good-will of God, he totally despairs in himself, … but waits for God to work
in him; and such an one is the nearest unto grace, that he might be saved.”[17] Grace, and grace alone, is the complete
necessity for salvation.
Next, because
salvation is not attained by works, most
non-Calvinists believe that it is not maintained
that way either. Galatians 2:20 says
that we have been crucified with Christ and that we cease to work; it is now
God that accomplishes the transformation is us (1 Cor 3:18). Our salvation isn’t ensured by our works
(Rom. 4:4-5), but by the completed work of Christ on the cross (1 Pet. 1:5). In defense of the opposing view, I do not
believe this constitutes an inconsistency.
It is not a necessity for Arminian theology to lead to the maintaining
of salvation by work. I think any
theological objection to the non-Calvinist position which insists that
Arminianism naturally and unavoidably lead to the “continued salvation by
works” is unwarranted and illogical. On
this point, I believe both Arminians and Calvinists who are faithful to the
Scriptures may be doctrinally sound.
Admittedly this
paper has come nowhere near to touching all that should be said on this
profound theological topic. The whole of
Scripture speaks almost infinitely on God’s will, purpose, plan, and work. In addition to that the human mind is limited
in its comprehension, especially on those things of a spiritual matter; how
much more so the contents of the mind of God!
This essay has covered several Scriptural supports for the complete
sovereignty of God, the utter ruin of man prior to salvation, and the glorious
work that God works to redeem believers.
An earnest attempt has been made to hold fast to the word of God as it
is revealed and to avoid exegetical gymnastics.
Hopefully, by the treatment of the applicable passages it is evident
that there is a reason that this discussion has endured for 1700 years and I will
close in agreement with Dr. Elmer Towns: “God has seen fit to use many who hold
to an Arminian system of theology. He
has also used many Calvinists in the same way. … God will bless a man’s faith
and faithfulness even if he may be off on minor doctrinal points.” May He lead us into all truth as He promised
(John 14:26), but may God’s desire for unity, love, and patience in the body be
ever a priority to us.
Bibliography
Boyd, Gregory A., Paul R. Eddy. Across
the Spectrum: Undersatnding Issues in Evalngelical Theology. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2009.
Luther, Martin.
The Bondage of the Will, trans.
Henry Cole. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976.
Lutzer, Edwin.
The Doctrines that Divide: A Fresh
Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians. Grand Rapids:
Kregel, 1998.
MacArthur, John. The
MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Nashville: Nelson, 2007.
Matthew Henry’s
Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible. Nashville: Nelson,
1997.
Goodrick, Edward W., John R. Kohlenberger III. The Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
Richardson, John R., Knox Chamblin. Proclaiming
the New Testament: The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963.
Radmacher, Earl, Ron Allen, and H. Wayne House. Compact
Bible Commentary. Nashville: Nelson, 2004.
Duane Edward Spencer, TULIP: The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of Scripture,
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 73.
Towns, Elmer. Theology
for Today. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2002.
[1] Edwin Lutzer, The Doctrines that Divide: A Fresh Look at
the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians, (Grand Rapids: Kregel,
1998), 152-223.
[2] All Scripture
references are given in the NKJV.
[3] Gregory A.
Boyd, Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Undersatnding Issues in Evalngelical Theology,
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 35-36.
[4] Edward W.
Goodrick, John R. Kohlenberger III, The
Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
[5] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today, (Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, 2002), 427.
[6] Duane Edward
Spencer, TULIP: The Five Points of
Calvinism in the Light of Scripture, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 73.
[7] Earl Radmacher,
Ron Allen, and H. Wayne House, Compact
Bible Commentary, (Nashville: Nelson, 2004), 797.
[8] John MacArthur,
The MacArthur New Testament Commentary,
(Nashville: Nelson, 2007), 447.
[9] Towns, 432-433.
[10] John R. Richardson,
Knox Chamblin, Proclaiming the New
Testament: The Epistle to the Romans, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963), 98.
[11] Lutzer, 169.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Richard, 92.
[14] Lutzer, 173.
[15] Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the
Whole Bible, (Nashville: Nelson, 1997), 1082.
[16] Lutzer, 162.
[17] Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. Henry
Cole (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 36.
No comments:
Post a Comment