God Is Sovereign!

Amen!

It all “comes from God” but He is not the one who does the deed. I’m not a very articulate defender on these points, but many others have wrestled with these things and done a good job of working them out.

In any case, however we explain it, we must not explain away any of what is revealed. So—to take the Joseph case as a prime example—“God meant it” is pretty clear. And “works all things according to…” is pretty clear, too.

What is equally clear is that people—sinners—are responsible for their choices and those choices, while decreed, are unforced (usually… I do think there is such a thing as direct hardening as a form of judgment… but even then, I suspect the hardening is more like an active push in the already chosen direction).

I do know that part of the answer lies in understanding “freedom of the will” in the context of human nature. We are only free to act in a manner consistent with our nature unless grace of some kind mitigates or liberates us from that. Common grace enables many to make noble choices though they are godless. Special grace… well, we need volumes to talk about what that does! But God never has to force a sinner to sin. We always want to unless He turns us—providentially or more directly—in some other direction. This is why “bondage of the will” is preferred terminology to many.

[Jerry Shugart] What about the “free will” of Adam and Eve?

http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html The Canons of Dordt

The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine

Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs

[Article 1: The Effect of the Fall on Human Nature] Man was originally created in the image of God and was furnished in his mind with a true and salutary knowledge of his Creator and things spiritual, in his will and heart with righteousness, and in all his emotions with purity; indeed, the whole man was holy. However, rebelling against God at the devil’s instigation and by his own free will, he deprived himself of these outstanding gifts. Rather, in their place he brought upon himself blindness, terrible darkness, futility, and distortion of judgment in his mind; perversity, defiance, and hardness in his heart and will; and finally impurity in all his emotions.

http://www.founders.org/library/bcf/bcf-6.html 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

[Chapter 6 - The Fall of Man: Sin and its Punishment] MAN, as he came from the hand of God, his creator, was upright and perfect. The righteous law which God gave him spoke of life as conditional upon his obedience, and threatened death upon his disobedience. Adam’s obedience was short-lived. Satan used the subtle serpent to draw Eve into sin. Thereupon she seduced Adam who, without any compulsion from without, willfully broke the law under which they had been created, and also God’s command not to eat of the forbidden fruit. To fulfill His own wise and holy purposes God permitted this to happen, for He was directing all to His own glory.

Gen. 2:16,17; Gen. 3:12,13; 2 Cor.11:3.

There’s Adam and Eve’s free will!

[Jerry] That does not change the fact that Dr. Pettegrew places the ultimate responsibility of Adam’s sin and Eve’s sin on God:

Actually he doesn’t, but this is a common charge against those who affirm the sovereignty of God.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A189] John MacArthur - Is God Responsible for Evil?

[If God is sovereign, is He responsible for evil?] God is certainly sovereign over evil. There’s a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree. He planned for it. It did not take Him by surprise. It is not an interruption of His eternal plan. He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:9-10).

But God’s role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good (Romans 8:28).

Would you prefer a God who is not sovereign over evil?

[Jerry Shugart] What do you not understand about the meaning of the words “He makes all of the events” in the following statement?:

Providence is that continuous action of God by which He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design.

He makes all events, both good events and bad events fulfill His original design, because God is sovereign. Isn’t that exactly what Romans 8:28 states.

Question for you - How does God sovereignly making all events fulfill His design, make Him responsible for every one of those events?

Providence is that continuous action of God by which He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design.

This statement here seems to be constructed in a way that lends itself to misinterpretation. It is left up to the reader, at this point, to wonder too much what is meant by original design thus they could easily miscalculate what is in view or they could rightly suspect what is in view, but either way its definition by the author would help in determining a more precise meaning. I have seen this reference used before but each time with a less than consistent use when compared to each user.

The most immediate question I can imagine someone asking if they are not sure as to what exactly is in view with the use of the term, original design, would be:

What other design does the author have in mind that exists which would require him to use the qualifier, original, in speaking of God’s design and what is its place, if it exists, in consideration of the issue?

Isaiah 53:4

Isaiah 53:10

Rev.13:8

Acts 2:23

RP, saying that God has decreed all that happens and works it together for His glory is not the same as saying He is responsible for everything that happens. That inference is not a necessary one. In any case, saying He has ordained it and works it for His glory is nothing more than what Paul says in Eph.1:11. If Dr. P is saying “God is responsible for Adam’s sin” then so is Paul. The phrase you’ve referred to in the article only paraphrases Eph. 1.11.

Alex, I think I’m safe in asserting here that by “original” Dr.P means basically “in the beginning.” It’s clear from the article as a whole that he does not believe there is any non-original plan. It’s probably roughly equivalent to the biblical “from the foundation of the earth.”

No time to comment, but just throw out this related quote from Calvin’s Institutes:

In speaking of God’s providence, “we make God the ruler and governor of all things, who in accordance with his wisdom has from the farthest limit of eternity decreed what he was going to do, and now by his might carries out what he has decreed. From this we declare that no only heaven and earth and the inanimate creatures, but also the plans and intentions of men, are so governed by his providence that they are borne by it straight to their appointed end.” (vol. 1, 207)

[Isaiah 53:4] Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

[Isaiah 53:10] Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief;

[Acts 2:23] this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

[Acts 4:27-28] for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place

I don’t know how it could be any clearer– God had more than just a passive role in allowing the crucifixion, it was part of his definite plan.

It is not our job to try to absolve God of the responsibility for something he declares himself responsible for. We can only affirm that in all of His sovereign dealings with man, He works things in such a way that He himself does no evil. And that is part of the mystery of God.

[Aaron Blumer]

Alex, I think I’m safe in asserting… It’s probably roughly equivalent to the biblical “from the foundation of the earth.”

I, too, suspected that, thanks for the affirmation.

A couple more observations I have.

Pettegrew states:

[Larry Pettegrew] Of course, all orthodox Christians agree that God is a Trinity, three persons in one essence. But just how powerful is this God? Does He control all things, even the details of life? Does He even know all things past, present, and future? Some evangelicals seem to be unsure.

Other evangelical theologians are passionately arguing the negative: God is neither in full control of the world, nor does He even know the details of the future. According to these Open Theists…

Never minding the example he gives after this quote, my interest is if, aside from Open Theists, is Pettegrew taking the approach that unless one is affirming the view he states they are automatically arguing the negative, that God is not in control?

I, personally, do not take Pettegrew’s view but do agree with much of what he says while firmly rejecting Open Theism. So my hope is that he believes there are those who do reject Open Theism but do affirm God is in control of all things and knows all things past, present and future yet do not do so with the terms and approach offered in his case. I suspect he does. But among the rest of us I know there has been the habit of using binary code to reduce this to either/or issues without recognition of acceptable and orthodox alternatives (without including Open Theism at all).

But as to this entry by Larry Pettegrew, I believe he escapes the charge of placing upon God the origin of evil. The “continuous action” of God does not necessitate that we view this action to be in the mind of Pettegrew or anyone else (unless stated specifically as such) as direct cause. As was quoted earlier, John MacArthur does a good job in presenting the role of evil under the stewardship of God’s sovereignty (bold and italics mine):

God is certainly sovereign over evil. There’s a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree. He planned for it. It did not take Him by surprise. It is not an interruption of His eternal plan. He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure

But God’s role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good

And it is important to note this because what Jerry S. has been arguing is actually an issue that arises when this doctrine is discussed with certain students and theologians. There is a healthy minority that urges others to assign blame to God for sourcing evil. They are also quite outspoken so I do understand Jerry’s response with respect to this argument. But I am not convinced that, apart from interpreting or at best taking by implication, Pettegrew is in this camp. In fact, as I said I believe he tries to make it clear he isn’t.

But I do also want to add that there are those who will mouth the view that God is not the author of evil yet, when handling things on a case by case basis, often they can be found either implying or explicitly (sometimes on purpose sometimes in ignorance) charging God with authoring evil. They oversimplify the sovereign mechanism.

For example, a loved one is murdered. Suddenly someone who does not take the theological position that God author’s evil will ascribe, either directly or by implication, that God chose for this person to die this way. Well, that is incorrect because it is incomplete and sends the wrong message. It takes the view that this was the decree of God with respect to his sovereign direct will as opposed to his sovereign passive superintending which allows for humans to make choices while God takes those choices and executes a divine determination. Worse, some forward the idea that God actually did intend for this to happen directly making him guilty of desiring sin. So these are elements that do arise but I believe Pettegrew is substantially far away from this posture in this case.

Jerry,

Do you believe that when discussing God’s sovereignty and acknowledging that he permits or allows volitional creatures to act as they will, which in the case of evil the volition of an agent other than God was the source of its introduction to the plan of God, and God beforehand (in his infinite knowledge that is eternally before and after all things) decreed to allow it, is synonymous with blaming or assigning responsibility to God for evil?

It appears to me that so far no one has denied that under the superintendence of God’s sovereign control he allows creatures with volitional capacity to act as they will. Now someone, after my saying this, might try to qualify what I just said in their agreement and if so I agree there might be an issue. But if my summary of the views expressed here is the case, so far the worst I have seen are references to theologians that in other parts of their work have directed students toward the erring view of an unintended overreach of divine sovereignty.

I do agree in some places some students and theologians err in their use of rationalism and philosophy (often strongly lead by Calvin’s example but this is not meant to bring Calvin himself into the argument) and reason something like…(crudely put here) “Since God is sovereign and sovereignty means complete control, that is nothing escapes God’s sovereignty, then ultimately God is responsible for both evil and good”….but I haven’t seen this declared here and really not even implied.

[Alex Guggenheim]…under the superintendence of God’s sovereign control he allows creatures with volitional capacity to act as they will.

And since God is sovereign, their action ultimately redounds to the glory of God!

[Jerry S.]

[Pettegrew] God is also providentially in control of the universe. Providence is that continuous action of God by which He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design….

By the “context” we can understand that he is saying that the word “make” means “to cause, induce, or compel.”

Jerry, what you’re overlooking there is the object of God’s causing, inducing and compelling. What does God compel? He compels all things to fulfill. That is, He takes what people do and causes them to work together for His design. He works all things according to the counsel of His will. It really is that simple.

It’s like saying “I cause, induce or compel the weeds in my garden to become compost.” I am not saying I made them grow in the first place, but that I make them become what I want them to become. The analogy is imperfect because God is more actively involved in men’s sins than I am in the weeds in my garden. He has decreed that all these things will certainly come to pass. But He does not usurp agency.

As for Is.53 and the crucifixion, it most certainly does describe the crucifixion. He was not

“wounded for our transgressions” and “bruised for our iniquities” in the garden, but on the cross!

(Isaiah 53.5).

Why is it so abhorrent to you that God planned to crucify His son before the foundation of the world, then saw to it that it would come to pass at the appointed time? This does not make Him the one who did the crucifying or mean that He forced the Jews and Romans involved to commit this act. Rather it means that He caused what these men chose to do to serve His purposes… just like Joseph’s brothers again (“You meant it for evil but God meant it for good”). This does not make God the author of evil. It makes Him the victor over evil because He turns even evil to His glory. In the act of pouring His wrath out on sin, His holiness is magnified.

[Romans 9] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 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?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory…

[JohnBrian]

[Alex Guggenheim]…under the superintendence of God’s sovereign control he allows creatures with volitional capacity to act as they will.

And since God is sovereign, their action ultimately redounds to the glory of God!

I would be careful to avoid the temptation to oversimplify the matter and prescribe this potentially injurious formula here. That is to say if all one has in view is (1) God being sovereign and (2) within his sovereignty he allows volitional acts thus the product of the two, God’s sovereignty and volitional action is always to God’s glory, then it is vitally missing other variables for a proper formula. I would have to disqualify this statement if it were meant to stand without amplification and clarification.

A good reference here to use in recognizing the necessity that the two being added together are not meant to be a formula for claiming something has been done to the glory of God (divine sovereignty + human volition) is found in 1 Corinthians 10. I will post with selected verses and the culminating reference to doing “all to the glory of God” (bold and italics mine):

7Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

8Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

9Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

10Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer…

…17For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

18Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

19What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

20But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

21Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.

22Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

23All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

24Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.

25Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

26For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.

27If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

28But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof:

29Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?

30For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

31Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

If Paul held to the formula as you have expressed he certainly did not employ it here. Because here Paul fills the passage before the final charge, “whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God” with a long list of things that clearly do not redound to the glory of God even though, if anyone did them, both God’s sovereignty and volition would be active which was the formula offered earlier.

So, as I said, while not disagreeing with the general theme of what was said it needs to be qualified with amplification and clarity.

First, I do not see the difference between what some are saying here about God’s sovereignty and what Dr. Pettegrew said. I think the problem here is a misunderstanding of what he actually said. Notice that in saying,

Providence is that continuous action of God by which He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design.

he does not say God “makes” or caused/causes the events to take place. He says that God makes these events (which could either be caused by God or by others) “fulfill his original design.”

Second, Isa 57:15 says God is, “the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity.” Any theology that makes God subject to time - which He created - will end up with these contradictions and problems. God does not “look back” to the past or “look forward” to the future as we do. He lives outside of time, which he created and thus is able to see our past, present and future from the same viewpoint - a viewpoint which is outside of time. Our inability to properly describe God’s relationship to time comes directly from the fact that we are creatures of time and cannot think any other way.

Jerry, had you read his book before I sent you the note?

The reason I sent it in an email was that I don’t think one can just quote a paragraph here and there of Pink’s works without distorting his views and setting up straw men. One cannot quote from chapter three without reading the rest of the chapters to further develop what he means when he says that. You have to take into account, specifically 7 and 8 that deal primarily with the will and responsibility.

Regardless, I don’t want to hear you quote other authors trying to repudiate them in order to make your beliefs seem correct. If you do not believe what DP said, then tell me why from scripture you believe it to be wrong. (and I am not going to rehash the few verses you have quoted as I believe others have done a good job explaining them) Don’t just keep quoting his one line and say I don’t get it. Don’t tell me about other author’s views that you believe to be wrong and by implication your’s correct. Why is DP wrong? (From scripture)

Is your hangup (not in a bad sense) based in the belief that one must have a free will in order to be responsible for actions committed?

Jerry,

I’ll concede that Jesus’ sufferings for sin may have begun before the cross. (per #23)

But this doesn’t really solve the perceived problem, and I should have recognized that before. God decreed the before-cross suffering just as much as He did the on-cross suffering and providentially ensured they would occur on schedule just as He did the cross.

As for what Dr. P. means by “continuous action of God by which He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design.” I’ve done all I can to explain that I think… as have others.

One last shot I suppose: I’ve read and heard enough of Dr.P to know that he is not of the opinion that God causes people to do things contrary to their own will. He ordains and they choose. Sovereignty and providence speak to the certainty that they will choose and to God’s activity in determining that they will choose, but these principles do not involve compelling people to act against their will. Saying “He makes these things happen” is simply not the same as saying “He forces them to choose what they do not want to choose.”

It may help to say a bit more about providence… I was just reading Fred Morritz’s Contending for the Faith last night and was reminded that providence is generally understood to mean what God brings about by the use of secondary causes as opposed to what He does directly (I believe he quoted recent writers like Millard Erickson and Roland McCune on that point, but it goes way back). That understanding of providence is important background. So you could argue that he should have said “indirectly” before “makes” but when you’re aiming to be brief you have to assume some things.

If these actions are controlled by God then how could it possibly be said that those who act in this way are “guilty before God”?

“Guilt” before God neccessarily denotes having committed an offense or crime before God. But if God controls those actions how could it be said that they were committing an offense against God? That weould make no sense at all.

First, Jerry, God answered this type of question in Romans 3 and Romans 9 two thousand years ago. And he answered contrary to what appears to be your answer.

Second, why don’t you email or call Dr. Pettegrew and ask him. I think that would clear it all up.

It seems to me that all Dr. Pettegrew has done is paraphrase Eph 1:11 where God “works all things [make all things] after the counsel of his own will [fulfill his purposes].” But again, why not just contact him and ask him.

Please be specific.

I was. Romans 3 and Romans 9 both answer your question.

I am merely commenting on what he wrote.

No, you are commenting on what you think he meant by what he wrote. It sounds to me like he is saying only what orthodoxy theology has said for centuries.

If you think that I am misrepresenting what he said then why don’t you contact him so he can clear this up.

Why is it my burden to contact someone that you are questioning what he says? You should contact him in the interest of wanting to properly understand him. I think it is a matter of Christian grace to try to seek out understanding rather than making accusations that amount to someone being unorthodox.

I have already answered that idea (see post # 13 on this thread).

Yes, you were incorrect there because you limited the verse beyond its meaning in context. Paul says God works “all things,” not simply predestination for an inheritance.

Two questions for Jerry:

You stated:

The point is whether or not God, by his continuous actions, caused those who crucified and murdered the Lord Jesus to do that deed.

You clearly believe He did not, so my question is this: Are you implying that there was no certainty of the crucifixion? For if God did not control the event (a.k.a. “make” it occur), then surely man could have acted differently. The eternal purpose of the Father for the Son (namely, to glorify Himself through Jesus’ life and work amongst fallen humanity) would have been intuitive guess-work, at best a series of calculated risks, if your position is accurate.

If any force in the universe makes it certain that anyone will act in a certain way then that person’s will is not really free.

Second question: Could you please clarify and support your exact understanding of “free will” from Scripture? If I understand your statement here, though I hope I am wrong, you are describing and affirming the doctrine of libertarian free will. This view is at the heart of Open Theism, and I beg you to employ caution if you are indeed affirming it.

By the way…

And anyone with an understanding of English grammar knows…

I’m fairly certain it is unnecessary to make this kind of comment on SI.

A lot has been said since my post, but with the limited time I have at the moment, let me make one comment and support it with scripture in response to this comment:

If any force in the universe makes it certain that anyone will act in a certain way then that person’s will is not really free.

Was not Abimelech withheld by God from sinning?

for I [God] also withheld thee [Abimelech] from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her [Sarah]. (Genesis 20:6)

If I can borrow your phrase which you so often use, Genesis 20:6 states in no uncertain terms that God made Abimelech do something that he would not have done, or rather the lack of doing something he would have done.

Jerry, you accuse Calvinists of believing God forces people to act against their will, thus giving them an excuse for their sin. What you describe is not Calvinism, but Hyper-Calvinism. Calvinists take what the Bible says and believe it, even if it doesn’t make sense.

For instance:

[Eph. 1:11] according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will

God does not consult men, and he does not react to man. He works all things out according to His own purpose.

[Rom. 1:20] So they are without excuse

Sinful men are completely and totally responsible for their actions. They can blame no one but themselves.

This is what orthodox believers have affirmed for 2,000 years. This is what everybody on this thread seems to affirm over and over. We cannot reconcile these truths in our minds because we are limited, but we believe them because God has said them.

Jerry, 2 Pet 3:9 can be interpreted different ways than the one you mentioned. The question that needs to be asked in regards to that verse is who is the any? I believe most C would say, the elect. In other words, people throughout the centuries have said, look around, he has not come back yet, therefore I don’t think He is coming back. But 2 Peter is making the case that God’s timing is not our timing. He will come back when He desires. And part of that desire is that all His elect will come to repentance. I probably massacred that interpretation, nevertheless, it is not a far-fetched interpretation.

[Jerry Shugart] If any force in the universe makes it certain that anyone will act in a certain way then that person’s will is not really free.

That is correct. Nobody’s will is truly free, but is limited according to it’s nature. In a way, even God’s will is not “free,” for that reason. He cannot choose to lie, for example. (Titus 1.2).

Being non-free is not the same as being forced. For example, consider my dog. If I lay a hotdog on the floor in front of her, she will certainly eat it. However, I did not force her to eat it. She did what she wanted to do.

If God does not do this, how do you explain what “works all things according to the counsel of His will” means? He works “some” things?

Now I haven’t seen the argument yet here (maybe I have overlooked… got a bit behind) that if God arranges conditions so that a sinner will certainly sin, He is responsible for the sin. Eventually, if one keeps chasing this he runs into the ages old “problem of evil.” I don’t really have an answer for that or feel that I need one.

What I can—and must—do is accept what Scripture plainly says, that a. He has arranged all that happens and b. He is not responsible for the sins sinners choose to commit. How this can be is not my problem any more than how He made the world in six days is my problem.

(Though guys like R. C. Sproule have come up some pretty good answers to all sorts of questions like these. I just don’t remember the answer or feel much of a need for it)

As for Jesus in Gethsemane and the nonrepentance of Jerusalem. Two things, briefly. One, quite a few students of that passage over the years (including many that would not claim to be Calvinists) have understood this moment to be an expression of Jesus’ human nature. He is grieving, and, “despising the shame.” He “knows” what the Father’s will is. This is clear when He says “nevertheless not as I will but as You will.” So He is never in doubt about what must be done.

As for Jerusalem, Paul is clear in Rom.11 that the nation had been hardened. In a way I can’t really explain, God does not “want” everything He has decreed. Rom.9 has a fascinating statement where Paul says God “endured with much longsuffering” the vessels of wrath He Himself prepared.

I appreciate Pettegrew’s point, which I suppose should be rather obvious to anyone, that restricting God’s knowledge only in the case of future free decisions is in fact an enormous reduction of knowledge. I was a bit disappointed, though, that the article failed to make any really insightful analysis as to what motivates open theists in this belief, and what process leads them there.

Obviously there have been conflicting views of human freedom for millennia, going back even farther than Augustine and Pelagius. However, the open theist idea of will is undoubtedly modern. There are many ways to illustrate this point, but a consideration of astrology will do. In ancient times and even through the Middle Ages, many people believed in astrology. This was not simply because they were stupid or silly, but because they believed in an integrated creation. The Greek concepts of physis and kosmos included not just what we would call the material universe, but also aesthetic and ethical laws as well. It was assumed that there was an underlying harmony that connected all these things, and that man stood within this harmony and therefore affected by it. I’m not sure how many made astrology an absolutely deterministic system (Marsilio Ficino claimed that knowledge of astrology allowed one to exert influence on the cosmos rather than vice versa), but those who believed in it nevertheless acknowledged that man is limited and influenced by external, even cosmic, factors.

The major objection to astrology during the Renaissance was not rational or scientific, but ethical and sentimental. Pico della Mirandola rejected astrology because it placed a limit on man’s self-determination; it reduced his freedom. For Pico, man is master of matter, not the other way around. The idea of the determining self so captured the imagination of people that astrology became not irrational, but degrading. Astrology is just one illustration of what is one of the most significant features of modern thought - the conception of “person” as a self-determining will. The modern man, to think himself free, not only requires that he not be obviously coerced, but he must not even be “pressured” or “influenced.” Nothing gets in the way of his own sovereign determination. The concept of the modern self as a free individual is reinforced by Kant and finds its full flowering in Nietzsche, who defines life as simply “the will to power.” Life is nothing more than the assertion of the individual to control all that is external to him, and he is great to the extent that he achieves.

The very existence of God as a personal, real, and knowable absolute creator and sustainer is an affront to the modern mind. As Pico realized, if something (in this case Someone) is directing what happens here on earth, humans can’t claim to be absolutely self-determining. In fact, there is only one person who meets the definition of a self-determining will, and that is God. (Even that is something of a caricature, though, because God’s will should never be considered separate from his intellect.) Everyone else who pretends to this is simply making himself into a little god, and a caricature at that. Open theists, following the modern impulse to value individual self-determination as the highest good, limit God; it is the only way they can stop him from limiting man.

Postscript: Ideas in this post were inspired by Louis Dupre, The Passage to Modernity; and Colin Gunton, The One, the Three, and the Many.

I started http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-free-will-redux] a new thread with the above title, so that the free will discussion could carry on there.

[Jerry Shugart] Notice that here Paul says that God hath “from the beginning” chosen the Christian to salvation through belief in the truth. How can this be since before the foundation of the world there was no one believing the gospel?

Actually, the answer is quite simple. In the eternal state the same “moment” when the sinner believes the gospel can be said to be the same “moment” that existed before the world began. After all, since God lives in the ever present “now” then the moment when a sinner believes belongs to the same “now” as does a moment that existed before the world began. Obviously the above quoted verses in regard to when the Christian is saved can only be understood in a figurative sense. It is a mistake to take verses that place God in time and use those verses to make doctrine.

This doesn’t even make sense. If “before the foundation of the world” is the same thing as “right now”, then “before the foundation of the world” has zero meaning.

Yes, God lives outside of time, but time does exist, He created it, and men are bound by it. In His dealings with men, God has broken into time. Paul is writing as a man to men from a human point of view. It is non-sensical to interpret this phrase in any way other than its plain meaning.

I thought it was the Calvinists that use too much theory…Jerry you seem to be doing this with Ephesians 1…..

[Jerry Shugart]

No, Paul is speaking about salvation in terms of the eternal state:

“But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess.2:13-14).

This says nothing about the eternal state.

The phrase “from the beginning” has absolutely no meaning if it’s identical to “now”. Why would Paul tell them God had chosen them to salvation from the beginning, if he really meant that they were saved now? Seems like he could have been a lot clearer if that’s what he was trying to say.

[Jerry Shugart] From the beginning God chose the sinner to salvation through belief in the truth. In the eternal state it can be said that “the beginning” is the same exact moment as when the sinner believes the gospel. Since “time” is the law of our being it is very difficult to understand a state where there is no time and that God lives in the ever present “now. But in the eternal state “before the foundation of the world” is the same moment when the sinner belioeves.

And I reject that interpretation based on the plain meaning of language

It does make sense if you understand that the eternal state is a state where time does not exist and God lives in the ever present “now.”

What leads you to believe that time doesn’t exist in the eternal state?

Charlie, appreciate your post (about six back or so). Very interesting. (And I hadn’t really thought of Nietsche quite that way before either).

The modern man, to think himself free, not only requires that he not be obviously coerced, but he must not even be “pressured” or “influenced.” Nothing gets in the way of his own sovereign determination

So true.

And it’s kind of fun to deconstruct, because when is influence truly absent? If nobody threatens me, OK, I can say I’m “free” to remain in my home. But what if someone offers to pay me $1000 to leave my house? Am I still “free”? What if he cuts off the electricity and gas and it gets really cold? Still “free”? What if he lights the house on fire?

And what if there is no “somebody” at all, but I run out of food. Am I “free” to stay then?

…or what if I have claustrophobia?

No, the truth is, we are always pressured and influence by one thing or another (whether within or outside ourselves) only in varying degrees. The only real freeing comes from grace and power outside ourselves. Left to ourselves we are very, very unfree.

Larry, please consider the following verse:

“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet.3:8).

The fact that God has a different timetable (which I think is the point of the verse) does not mean that time does not exist in eternity. For instance, in eternity there are songs sung. That means the passing of time. Words spoken mean that time has passed. Leaves that grow mean that time has passed. Those things make no sense in a “timeless” world. So while God has a different relationship to time, that is different than saying that time does not exist in the eternal state.

[Jerry Shugart] “But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess.2:13-14).

Now tell me how a sinner can be saved “before the world began” if his salvation depends on believing the truth of the gospel?

“hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation”

This does not say “from the beginning we were saved”, but from the beginning we were chosen to salvation.

I have a question for you, however.

[Rom 8:30] and those whom he justified he also glorified.

How can Paul say that God glorified (aorist) anybody, if nobody has been glorified yet?