And then I read the Scriptures:
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Rom 8:28-30).Now, this is problematic to the Arminian on multiple levels. For instance, we are assured that the believer can have no assurance. "You can lose your salvation, so work hard." In terms of what God does with the believer, however, we see something different here. We see a string of events orchestrated by God and uninterrupted by my works. Starting with "predestined" (an evil word, I know, to some, but ... it's in there), He calls. From called to justified and from justified to glorified. There is no "What about me?" in there. This is a listing of God's work in those whom He foreknows. End of story. If we add "But some, of course, deviate", then we are adding a sequence that is not there and calls into question God's ability to do exactly what He says here in this passage -- a dangerous proposition. Still, I understand that there aren't as many true Arminians as there are those who simply object to this whole "God does the choosing" premise. And that's the point I wanted to get at here.
We all (or mostly all) know and love that 28th verse. "God causes all things to work together for good." Oh, yeah! Good stuff! It is good to those who love God and it is good to those who are called according to His purpose. Fine. We like that. But the next verse begins with a "for" statement. God causes all things to work together for good for a reason. What is that reason? God has a plan, "His purpose". And what is that purpose? To conform people into the image of His Son. That should be abundantly clear -- beyond dispute.
The string of events that brings about this conformation is a sequence caused by God. It starts with "foreknew". Okay, I see those hands. I hear the objections. "See? He foreknew who would choose Him!" Well, actually, that's not what it says, is it? The language, in fact, is one of intimacy. You know, like "'to know' in the biblical sense". That is, those with whom He was intimate before they knew it He predestined. But you've likely heard that and rejected it. "No, no! It's 'foreknew'! He knows in advance who will choose Him." So, let me see if I have this right. The idea is that God plans/hopes/desires to predestine everyone to be conformed to the image of His Son ... but we just don't give Him permission. He's standing on the edge of time looking down and hoping, hoping, hoping, YES! Another one will give Him permission and so that one is chosen. Now God can begin the string of predestine, call, justify, glorify. Now He can begin His work. Before that, well, sorry, but His hands were tied.
The language here is problematic for that kind of thinking. (And, no, I can't imagine a hardcore or softcore Arminian using language like "His hands were tied." It's the only possible conclusion I can find.) The problem is that the entire language used here is outside of Human Free Will. In fact, up until this point, the language was about "futility" (Rom 8:20), not ability. Hey, we don't even know how to pray (Rom 8:26)! Fortunately for God, we do have the ability to give Him permission to choose us. No, the language in this passage completely avoids any human intervention. It is all about what God does. He doesn't seem to wait for anything, to require permission, to expect from those whom He foreknows something they need to contribute. It's all on Him.
The "doctrines of grace" as they are sometimes called have a way of removing "me" from the equation. Like this passage in Romans 8, the idea is that it is all God. We don't choose. We don't provide the faith. We don't contribute. God does the work. So when we do choose (and we do), it is because God enabled it and it is because God is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure. No part of my salvation, new nature, or eternal life can be attributed to something I brought in. That is the image painted in this passage. That's the glory I embrace.
7 comments:
Still studying this issue and am glad you've posted more on it. But I do have another question: what of those he doesn't compel? It still comes down to resolve this issue of God being a just and merciful God. What is just about God NOT causing some to be comformed? This is where I get confused. I'm not one to believe that God has any need to have each soul created join Him in Paradise, yet it is said that He does not wish that any should perish. So, if those who are to join Him can only do so because of His causing them to, where's the justice in punishing those who are not so caused and thus never come to believe and obey?
Marshall Art: "What is just about God NOT causing some to be comformed?"
I think you're a little confused about justice. What is just would be for God to damn everyone. That's what we've earned.
Here, try this. An atheist once told this little story about how evil God is. He pictured a man sitting by a pool reading a book. A little two-year-old came out to play, fell in the pool, and was drowning. The man did nothing. That's God with human being drowning in evil.
It's an inaccurate image. We aren't little gods. The Bible pictures us as creatures -- creations -- and we are hostile to God. "I will be like the Most High." The better picture would be a man sitting by the pool when a swarm of angry mosquitoes attack. Unfortunately, they fall short and land in the pool. So the man gets up and goes over and starts pulling out a few of the mosquitoes. A neighbor says, "Hey, what are you doing that for? Let 'em die." He says, "These will serve my purpose."
There's no reason for God to save any. He owes Man nothing. Damning some shows His wrath and power (Rom 9:22). Saving some shows His mercy. But in the end, it's all about Him. We humans are the ones that want to make it all about us.
Marshall Art: "If those who are to join Him can only do so because of His causing them to, where's the justice in punishing those who are not so caused and thus never come to believe and obey?"
Read Rom 9. That is exactly the question Paul addresses in Rom 9:20-23.
Well I certainly will continue my study, but you unfortunately haven't moved me one way or the other here.
I have shown that I agree that God doesn't need any of us. But that's not the point, particularly if we're discussing what it means to say that God is just. That there is no reason for God to save any of us is a mere statement of fact. But so is the fact that He will save some of us. The whole concept of justice is fallacious if whether we are saved or not is entirely dependent upon Him. If not fallacious, certainly unnecessary and not applicable a term as regards His nature. There's really no judgement and justice required. Yet we are taught that we will be judged. Without choice, without free will, what we have is not really a final judgement, but merely an inventory of who is in and who is out based totally on which of us mosquitos he pulls out of the pool. It sounds capricious.
I don't think you or anyone has suggested that God "needs" any of us. But there is inherent in many (most) objections the sense that God is obligated in some sense. Some think that He is obligated to humans because we are so valuable and He should, if He is just (and right thinking, of course), at least aim to save us all if He can. (Included in this thought is that, well, He just can't. If only we would all choose correctly, then God's wishes would come true. Unfortunately, our Free Will prevents that.) Others think that if God saves one, justice obligates (there's that word again) Him to save all ... or, at least, as before, to attempt to save all. This comes from a definition of "justice" that says, "Everyone should get the same thing." It's often referred to as "equity" or "fairness". Now, this is a definition of "justice" in English, so if we're going to go here, we need to see where it leads.
If God is "just" in the sense that He treats everyone equally and can, if He plans to save any, must save all (or try to), then the doctrine of Election is indeed a lie. "Yeah," they tell me, "that's what we've been saying all along. God treats everyone the same, but not everyone takes advantage of His offer." So, in this concept we have a God who is a limp biscuit, so to speak. I mean, He wishes He could save all, but He lacks the ability to do so. Perhaps He has the ability, but He just doesn't wish it strong enough ... so He lacks the desire (ultimately) to do so. Whichever is the case (and neither bodes well for God), it turns out that Man trumps God in this particular universe, hamstringing God's plans with Human Free Will. (This is why I so often refer to it using capital letters; it turns out it is able to actually stop God from accomplishing what He intends.)
So, now we have a limited God -- perhaps self-imposed, but still limited. And the whole idea of "nothing is impossible with God" isn't quite accurate. Election (despite the repeated biblical use of the term) is wrong. But, of course, so is the Bible when Paul writes, "[God] has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Rom 9:18). It would be unfair for God to have mercy on some and harden others, since everyone must be treated the same. Therefore, either Paul is describing an unjust God ... or we're operating on a faulty definition of "justice".
It seems, dear friend, that you have yourself on the horns of a dilemma. If you need to define "just" as "treating everyone equally", you end up with humans who can do things the Bible says they can't, a God who cannot do things the Bible says He already does, doctrines that the Bible says are true which are false, and a real mess of a Deity who either cannot or will not save all for reasons we cannot fathom.
It is for these (and other) reasons that I do not define "just" as "equitable", but as "righteous". This justice, then, rewards what is good and punishes what is evil and that's because it's right, not because it's "equitable". This justice always does what is right ... because that's its definition. (By the way, since justice is defined by God -- as opposed to God being subject to it -- perhaps it's best to see what God does and call that "just".) Justice cannot simply forgive sin, which is why sin had to be paid for. It does not allow for mercy; justice and mercy are opposed. And it does not require in the least that all creatures must be treated equally because creatures are not the Creator. They must all be treated with justice, but not with equality. So I end up without the problems that your view offers. And, fortunately, I find it in Scripture. ;)
(By the way, "capricious" suggests "without reason". It is subject to whim or impulse. None of this is behind the idea of Election. The idea is not that God chooses without reason. The idea is that God chooses for reasons that He knows and not for reasons within the chosen. Paul says it is "so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand" -- on the basis of His purposes. As opposed to, "This one is better than that one ..." On the other hand, it would appear that my view is unacceptable to so many and the truth is that God does choose based on who is better. He chooses based on who chooses Him. In other words, like a schoolyard meany, He chooses His team based on who chooses to be His friends. And, as such, isn't there indeed something to boast about there? "I made the right choice. And I enabled God to choose me! Can't really say what's wrong with the rest of you who don't.")
I read your response and end up with more questions than less. Why are you doing that to me? :)
Semi-seriously, though, I'm not saying God is limited by anything more than what HE has said or done. Some say that He wouldn't do anything that is not logical, such as creating a stone so large that He cannot lift it. What would be the point? But, that does denote a limitation---that He won't do, not that He can't, but won't do anything that isn't logical. I don't know. That's idle speculation, but for the sake of this discussion, I'm not suggesting limitations as much as merely doing that which He seems to have always been saying.
From OT times it's always been about, God's way or the Hebrews' way (or man's way). Hard times befall those who reject His way, and good things, like winning wars when greatly outnumbered, when His way is followed. Seems like a free will choice to me is all I'm saying.
The justice comes from having made that choice. We cannot do a darn thing without first accepting Jesus. Without Him, nothing else gets it done. Even if we need God to call us to Christ, I don't see that at some point there's no choice on our part made to accept Him.
I don't get your separation of justice and mercy. Mercy is a manifestation of justice, just as punishment is. In the case of God, when we accept Christ and seek to live as He taught us to, we are shown mercy for our imperfections as human creatures. This is justice. Those who reject God and never accept Christ, are punished. This is justice.
But still, I am yet to conclude my studies to which your responses compell me.
On justice versus mercy:
Justice is "you get what you deserve". If you're a sinner, you get punishment. If you're not, you don't. Mercy, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite. Mercy is when you don't get what you deserve. Different from grace (getting what you don't deserve), mercy is justice set aside.
Paul said that the only way that God could be both just and merciful was by having His Son pay the price (justice) for those who deserve punishment so that those who receive Christ won't have to (mercy). That's the only way that God can be both "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:26).
Marshall Art: "We cannot do a darn thing without first accepting Jesus."
Marshall, could you do me a favor? Could you explain to me, taking into account all that the Bible says about Natural Man, how a human being can first "accept" Jesus? Keep in mind that Natural Man is inclined only to evil. Take into account that the flesh profits nothing. Remember to factor in that humans are hostile to God. Include the idea that Man is dead in sin. Be sure to also include that Natural Man is a slave to sin. Oh, and be sure to account for the claim that Natural Man will not understand the things of God because he cannot. Keeping all this in mind, what, exactly, is Natural Man able to do to overcome all this to "first accept Jesus"? You make it sound so simple, and from what I can see, it's quite impossible. To me it's like saying, "All you have to do is fly up to the top of the Empire State Building without any flying apparatus to be saved." Um ... okay ... but ... we can't do that, can we?
(Note: I put "accept Christ" in quotes because I despise the phrase. I know ... it's popular ... but I hate the idea of God's creation looking over God's Son and saying, "Mmmmm, yeah, okay, I find Him acceptable." Gives me the shivers to think about.)
Marshall Art: "He won't do, not that He can't, but won't do anything that isn't logical."
Some may say that. I wouldn't. The Bible has lists of things that God cannot do. For instance, an omniscient being cannot fail to know something. He is not a man that He should change His mind. He cannot fail to accomplish His will. He cannot sin. He cannot die. And the list goes on. I would say that God does not make a rock too big for Him to lift because He cannot. No, not that He lacks the ability (I'm not even going there), but that it would violate His nature. God must always act within His own nature. So, yes, there are limitations to God -- the same one that all His creatures have. None of us can act outside of our own nature. You know ... birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, that sort of thing. And since Natural Man's nature is one of sin, Natural Man cannot do otherwise.
No, I'm not saying that there are no limitations in God. I'm saying that the limitation you're expressing is one that is imposed on Him. Where did we get the idea that God cannot intervene in Human Free Will? It's an idea that is so popular that it is assumed. Why? It's not in the Bible. (I can point you to the opposite, in fact.) God's will (it is said) is that all be saved. Why, in your view, is God unable to accomplish His will because of the whim of His creation? You see, that's an external limitation ... and I deny that God has external limitations.
Post a Comment