Summary
Does God direct History from the perspective of eternity? That is to say does he bring to pass events, and more specifically, move people, heaven and earth to orchestrate those events according to a plan that he purposed before the foundation of the world?
Or does God merely report back from the future to his prophets like a roving journalist sourcing newsworthy stories that will give him a greater circulation?
What of the wider ramifications of this understanding? If the prevalent view in evangelical Christianity is that God elects (chooses) to save those on the basis of looking into the future and seeing who will choose Him, how does it effect our view of the nature of God? In the Arminian scheme- God’s foreknowledge of human choice "is the ontological ground of election." (Randall Rauser Assoc. Professor of Historical Theology Taylor Seminary- Canada. )
Isn’t that really saying God saw in the future that we would choose Christ, so God chose us on the basis of that? (Prof. Rauser: "Exactly") Which means what you choose and what I choose is really ultimate. And God ratifies our choice- his election of us becomes in effect a contingent cause. Here again this view denies the omnipotence and sovereignty of God not to mention the initiation of our faith. In my book- God is the author and finisher of our faith.
Is this not analogous to the Queen decreeing that the sun will rise in the morning?
What of omnipotence? Are we being less loyal to God by paying lip-service to predestination and therefore omnipotence in order to keep allegiance with our own supposed supreme sovereignty and absolute autonomy?
Who then is the potter- who the clay?
If the idea of omnipotence can survive the onslaught of "the problem of evil" (ie. If God is all powerful why does evil appear to reign?) without compromising the nature of God then ought we to treat predestination in the same light?
This is for those who deny the biblical doctrine of Predestination or at least water it down so that what is in fact God directing history from all eternity, becomes- God merely viewing history through his omniscience -before it happens- and then moving the prophets to record it as he has seen it beforehand. There are inherent problems with this view- first lets look at the problems of inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture from the free will perspective:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.(2 Peter 1:20-21)
If it is not granted that God irresistibly moved events -including people- to fulfill what he had planned beforehand, (supposedly because to do so would be sacrilege to the doctrine of freewill), then how is it even possible that he could infallibly and even reliably get the prophets to say and foretell the prophecies which were to come- at the right time, in the right manner, and in the correct place, to the right people- according to his will?
When we glibly say “ Well my God is the God of the impossible” this statement is true only of things which are logically possible, for instance God cannot make square circles, not through lack of knowledge or power but because it is a nonsense, circles are round by definition. It is evading the issue. He is a God of miracles but not nonsense, miracles are rationally defensible.
Did he search to and fro upon the earth until he found someone willing to speak beforehand of the coming of the Christ or did he raise up Isaiah the prophet for such a time, in such a place and for such a purpose as this? How many people were available in Isaiah’s day for God to convince the necessity of speaking his message? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? If each of them including Isaiah had the ability to say "no" what were the chances of Gods’ timing coming to pass? This would bring the ridiculous and dismal possibility into reality that the Christ could have appeared in history before any one could be found to foretell it! If God is not infallible both in knowledge and in power there is no recourse but to include chance in all of his plans- what then becomes of the basis of all his promises?
"God cannot lie, and what He says goes"
(Hebrews 6:13) For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,… (Hebrews 6:16) For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. (Hebrews 6:17) Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: (Hebrews 6:18) That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: (Hebrews 6:19) Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; (Hebrews 6:20) Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (Emphasis mine)
The writer of Hebrews says that Abraham’s faith was vouchsafed for, warranted by two immutable or unchangeable- things:
· God cannot lie.
· His counsel will stand. (Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (Isaiah 46:11) Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.)The irony is that if Isaiah by his freewill refused to speak the word of God recorded above, (which is a possibility that has to be admitted if you hold that doctrine sacrosanct), then it is just plain lucky that there was no prior prophecy that God would raise up a prophet called Isaiah to speak of the coming Messiah! But this is patently all nonsense when due consideration is given to the above words: God cannot lie, and what he says- goes. End of story. Period.
Therefore we, who believe, like Abraham, may hope even in the face of no hope because we have an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil.
If it were otherwise how could any of his promises be taken with more than a grain of salt? Could this conundrum have anything to do with why many people of faith today (whether they admit it or not) live shallow lives trusting in riches or worldly schemes and programmes and the like? Is it possible that a false view of predestination -such as exemplified above- undermines faith?
If we grant that God does not or cannot even compel his chosen instrument to speak when he desires we then must play the “numbers by chance” game and say “Well God kept trying until someone agreed to speak- what, when, to whom and how he required”. We are then left to ponder the ramifications of leaving not only the prophetic utterances, but also the fulfilment of the prophetic acts themselves- to chance.
To better illustrate how to gauge the likelihood of this happening picture this statistic: With just six two by four Lego bricks there are a only a finite possible number of ways these can be combined. The answer is in excess of a staggering 915 million ways they can be put together! An ordinary desktop computer would take about half a week to calculate it.
(http://www.math.ku.dk/~eilers/lego.html#howgetright)
Given the above we know that statistically, according to probability, the moment a variable that has a large number of possibilities, like the number of people that existed in the world during the adult lifetime of the prophet Isaiah (and each of them like Isaiah with an equal ability to say "yea" or "nay" to God’s request to speak on his behalf), is put into an equation like we see in the detailed accuracy of Isaiah’s prophecy reconciled in the life of Jesus the Christ- the likelihood of an outcome that equated to any prediction is very, very remote. Now give all those potential prophets that could speak that (which we will say for arguments sake Isaiah refused to speak) on God’s behalf, x amount of years (representing their lifetime after God pleaded with them to speak) in which to make up their minds whether to speak or not, what-(if anything!) they said might happen to agree with God, and now you perhaps will begin to acknowledge the huge problem for God to get his prophetic voice heard! It does no good to plead here that God has unlimited power and endless knowledge to overcome the enormous odds- because that is what the problem is in the first place with this view of predestination- it has already limited God to possibilities- to chance.
Chance is the necessary environment for the doctrine of free will...
Chance is the necessary environment for the doctrine of freewill- as it is commonly postulated- just as the universe is the necessary environment for matter. We must refuse to limit God to chance- just as we would refuse to limit him to the Universe. We live in an environment and our present nature deems this necessary- God needs no environment. Our freedom, (which is real) is none the less a derived -and therefore limited- freedom, whereas God’s freedom is unlimited, an ultimate freedom.
But that is not all; this is merely the multiplied problem of voicing the prophecies- what of the prophetic acts them selves? It follows if God had a problem of making himself heard, (the necessary consequence of a world given to chance) what then becomes of the problem of making the prophetic acts actually coming to pass in the specific timeframe, at a defined place and through the actual people he had ordained? If he did not infallibly move the prophets how does he then inexorably move all circumstances for their fulfulment? Here the problem becomes exponentially far more difficult for a God who is limited by chance because there are potentially huge numbers of variable possibilities.
Now by this time you are probably (and quite rightly) fed up with numbers, statistics and chance and will object to my repeated reference to them. But here I must admonish the reader, it is not I that introduced the issue, but the responsibility lies with whoever promulgates such a view of prophecy and its fulfilment, that includes chance as a variable constraint within it and its necessary corollary freewill. What I have attempted to do is merely elucidate or follow this erroneous teaching to its logical conclusion.
But that is not all; this is merely the multiplied problem of voicing the prophecies- what of the prophetic acts them selves? It follows if God had a problem of making himself heard, (the necessary consequence of a world given to chance) what then becomes of the problem of making the prophetic acts actually coming to pass in the specific timeframe, at a defined place and through the actual people he had ordained? If he did not infallibly move the prophets how does he then inexorably move all circumstances for their fulfulment? Here the problem becomes exponentially far more difficult for a God who is limited by chance because there are potentially huge numbers of variable possibilities.
Now by this time you are probably (and quite rightly) fed up with numbers, statistics and chance and will object to my repeated reference to them. But here I must admonish the reader, it is not I that introduced the issue, but the responsibility lies with whoever promulgates such a view of prophecy and its fulfilment, that includes chance as a variable constraint within it and its necessary corollary freewill. What I have attempted to do is merely elucidate or follow this erroneous teaching to its logical conclusion.
By Compulsion and Necessity or Willingly? A Case of Either –Or, or Both-And?
It is perhaps unfortunate that human nature, being what it is, abhors loose ends, untidy bits that won’t fit into our scheme of things. In much the same way -nature abhors a vacuum and therefore will always try to fill it! We are made in such a way that what ever confronts us we will attempt to categorize, compartmentalize and arrange things in an ordered sort of way until we see that it all fits neatly. This is no less true of Systematic Theology, but of course what must be borne in mind is that there is a limitation to how you can categorize personality. We are not merely classifying properties of a substance but dealing with a person- in fact dealing with the complexities of the Triune God. It must immediately be admitted if we were able to exhaustively categorize in this fashion He would be a lesser God. For example we even struggle in English to correctly put “him” into the correct gender class since in reality he transcends the label “He” or “She” and “It” doesn’t bode well either!
What seems to happen when confronted with paradox- where two things are both held to be true but they are inherently opposed we tend to get polarized, that is, we either take one position or the other but will not hold them in tension. Whatever position seems most right in our own eyes is, understandably the one we ultimately side with. And the opposite side of the coin we disagree with and do not allow as true and is therefore discarded as untrue. Now in this day and age where relativism seems to hold society in its slimy but vice-like grip, what is true for you is fine, but my truth is just as true even if totally opposite and never the twain shall meet, just accept the fact and get on with life. So now people merely say “Whatever” and get on with it. End of dialogue. Whatever opposes the popular view gets ignored and trivialized to the point of marginalisation and irrelevance. This unfortunate circumstance is in fact one of the greatest stumbling blocks to unity in the history of the church and is the cause of a great divide, the bifurcation of one faith into two streams of thought that has spanned the last 1700 years.
For the scientifically minded, an example of this sort of paradox is found in the theory of light- where one version (Huygens) holds light as a wave whereas the other (Newton) holds it as a particle. What is interesting is that in various experiments designed to prove each theory- both theories work well and explain light as alternatively a wave and again as a particle. The problem is that both exponents could not reconcile these explanations as both true at one and the same time, they appeared to be mutually exclusive. Enter Einstein, Louis de Broglie and others with the concept of Quantum Mechanics. Now “wave-particle duality” is commonly accepted within the parameters of quantum mechanics, what previously was paradoxical has become explicable within the terms of the new framework. Interestingly more than two hundred years of scientific endeavour passed before the new construction came to light.
Given the above it is hardly surprising that Albert Einstein should say this: 'New frameworks are like climbing a mountain - the larger view encompasses rather than rejects the more restricted view.'Not only has science been freed from the limiting concepts of either particle or wave explanations but it is free now to embrace the valid points of both explanations without the need of resorting to antagonising either stance, which was confusing.
So science has, in the fullness of time, been enabled to make what was previously thought mutually exclusive, actually compatible. Followers of Huygens no longer need to ostracize followers of Newton. That is not to say all differences have been resolved but science has moved on to answer new questions that have risen as a result.
Where then, does that leave us?
Questions regarding the apparent contradiction between “Predestination” and “freewill” have been resolved for many years but in certain contexts the old antagonisms and difficulties are still very much in evidence. One person spoken to regarding the use of the term “freewill” flatly denied any preference for either Arminianism or Calvinism and then proceeded to expound vociferously upon his ability to freely choose whatever doctrine he saw fit! It reminded me of someone lamenting the non-existence of public transport and then waving with a flourish as they stepped aboard the big yellow bus.
And that in a nutshell is really the problem- those who stand most strongly against the biblical truth of predestination have never really understood the distinction between the absolute, ultimate freewill of God and mankinds derived "freewill" and consequently are not at all enamoured with the resolution of the paradox. A greater appreciation of the difference between mankind as the "image" of God and the God in whose likeness he is made would go some way to expose the wrongheadedness in thinking that the will of man could in any real way hinder the plans and purposes of God. Man, as the image of God, is easily perceived as inexhaustively less than God himself, (just as we appreciate the difference between the image and the actual), and so each of mankinds attributes reflect this. His physical power, the mental powers, no less so than the power of his will.
Free will has in the course of its history not only divided believer against believer but it has been the grounds for dissension between believer and non-believer:
“As for the doctrine of predestination…to reconcile it with the concept of free will…I was so outraged…. that I simply wrote the expletive, ‘Bosh!’….Worse still, when I turned to the Bible itself, I found not a trace of the idea that human beings - as opposed to God himself - possessed genuine free will” Raymond Bradley- “The Open Society” official journal of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists, Volume 78, Number 1, Autumn 2005
It is a sad indictment indeed that it is a self-professed atheist that could perceive the difference between the ultimate freedom of God and limited freedom of the human will as portrayed in the scriptures whereas many Christians do not see this distinction at all. It cannot be overstated that human freedom is real enough to make us responsible for all of our decisions and yet not so ultimate that God needs our permission to move our wills. Human autonomy must also be real enough for it to be truly possible to "love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul." A love that was not spontaneous is not love at all- but here it must be stressed- that the love with which we love God is a derived love, not- in the purest sense- a native of human origins. (Romans 5:5) ...because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." As Augustine once said "God crowns his own gifts..." As it is with "our love" so it is with "our wills"- they are derived from the nature of God, in the same sense that we are made in his image: (Philippians 2:13) For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. So the idea of absolute independence that most associate with human autonomy (freewill) is a dream. What is shocking is that there is by and large no difference between "human freewill" as espoused by the Evangelical church and how it is percieved in secular society. The huge impact of Christianity, when it reached its zenith in Western society has meant the idea of "human freewill" as an absolute, has become an endemic part of postmodern philosophical "givens" at street level. Any look at recent social trends will expose this: "pro-choice", "free-love" and the pre-occupation with individualism to name but a sample. The more recent growth of "open theism" is the same error taken closer to its logical conclusion.
“As for the doctrine of predestination…to reconcile it with the concept of free will…I was so outraged…. that I simply wrote the expletive, ‘Bosh!’….Worse still, when I turned to the Bible itself, I found not a trace of the idea that human beings - as opposed to God himself - possessed genuine free will” Raymond Bradley- “The Open Society” official journal of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists, Volume 78, Number 1, Autumn 2005
"our willingness is incidental to the irresistible will of God"
It is a sad indictment indeed that it is a self-professed atheist that could perceive the difference between the ultimate freedom of God and limited freedom of the human will as portrayed in the scriptures whereas many Christians do not see this distinction at all. It cannot be overstated that human freedom is real enough to make us responsible for all of our decisions and yet not so ultimate that God needs our permission to move our wills. Human autonomy must also be real enough for it to be truly possible to "love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul." A love that was not spontaneous is not love at all- but here it must be stressed- that the love with which we love God is a derived love, not- in the purest sense- a native of human origins. (Romans 5:5) ...because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." As Augustine once said "God crowns his own gifts..." As it is with "our love" so it is with "our wills"- they are derived from the nature of God, in the same sense that we are made in his image: (Philippians 2:13) For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. So the idea of absolute independence that most associate with human autonomy (freewill) is a dream. What is shocking is that there is by and large no difference between "human freewill" as espoused by the Evangelical church and how it is percieved in secular society. The huge impact of Christianity, when it reached its zenith in Western society has meant the idea of "human freewill" as an absolute, has become an endemic part of postmodern philosophical "givens" at street level. Any look at recent social trends will expose this: "pro-choice", "free-love" and the pre-occupation with individualism to name but a sample. The more recent growth of "open theism" is the same error taken closer to its logical conclusion.
Now some will wrestle with this concept but our willingness is incidental to the irresistible will of God. God simply makes us willing. And now those same objectors will rail against the word "make" and use it to mean force. To which is replied he who is willing has not had their (limited) autonomy violated.
The scriptures are blindingly clear in this regard- they do not countenance any objection at all but plough right on through our ill-conceived ideas of human autonomy. It is to the scriptures now we will turn-
- read the following verses:
(Acts 2:22) Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: (Acts 2:23) Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Acts 2:24) Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
First we notice God did miracles and wonders and signs by him (the Christ) God so willed- Christ so willed- and it was done. (John 8:28)…I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things…. (John 8:29)… for I do always those things that please him.
No contradiction there- Jesus did the miracles willingly and God did them by him in accordance with his decretal will.
The scriptures are blindingly clear in this regard- they do not countenance any objection at all but plough right on through our ill-conceived ideas of human autonomy. It is to the scriptures now we will turn-
- read the following verses:
(Acts 2:22) Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: (Acts 2:23) Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Acts 2:24) Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
First we notice God did miracles and wonders and signs by him (the Christ) God so willed- Christ so willed- and it was done. (John 8:28)…I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things…. (John 8:29)… for I do always those things that please him.
No contradiction there- Jesus did the miracles willingly and God did them by him in accordance with his decretal will.
In the matter of his Crucifixion Jesus said: (John 10:17) Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. (John 10:18) No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. It is within the scope of “no man” that God also is included, the term used is more properly stated “no-one” or "nothing" Here we see that Christ the second Adam not tainted with the old Adamic nature, and its bondage to sin, is truly autonomous having the same ultimate freedom within himself as the father. And thus helps us to see the authenticity of his claim to be the second person of the trinity.
(Acts 2:23) Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, Here also there is no incongruity- Jesus was delivered up to an ignominious death on a cross by God the father according to his plan which he ordained from all eternity. (Revelation 13:8) the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.Last and least the responsibility for his death lies at the hands of sinners like you and I, whether Jew as represented by the Jewish leaders and the crowd who cried out for the malefactor Barabbas thereby delivering the Christ to death; or gentile represented by the Roman leaders and soldiers: Him,.. ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain…There is just no argument with this complete consummation of God’s plan in the death of Christ which has occurred :
1. By his (Christ’s) own hand- but I lay it down of myself2. By God’s own will- Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God3. By the wicked wills of evil men- ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slainWhat is essential to note here is that God’s entire plan was executed just as he predestined and foretold through Isaiah and the prophets and even the wicked wills of those who were freely and willingly complicit in the scheme to end his life were indeed playing necessarily into the hands of God. Their ignorance of God’s eternal plan, even though it was foretold to them by Isaiah, but not heeded through unbelief and a lack of recognition on their part- all colluded together to render the flawless plan of God into being.
(1 Corinthians 2:7) But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: (1 Corinthians 2:8) Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.
This begs the question: If even wicked plans made and carried out by evil men work to the glory of God then how much more so are things in accordance with his plan when good men work good at the hand of God? (Philippians 2:13) For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
(Acts 2:23) Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, Here also there is no incongruity- Jesus was delivered up to an ignominious death on a cross by God the father according to his plan which he ordained from all eternity. (Revelation 13:8) the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.Last and least the responsibility for his death lies at the hands of sinners like you and I, whether Jew as represented by the Jewish leaders and the crowd who cried out for the malefactor Barabbas thereby delivering the Christ to death; or gentile represented by the Roman leaders and soldiers: Him,.. ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain…There is just no argument with this complete consummation of God’s plan in the death of Christ which has occurred :
1. By his (Christ’s) own hand- but I lay it down of myself2. By God’s own will- Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God3. By the wicked wills of evil men- ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slainWhat is essential to note here is that God’s entire plan was executed just as he predestined and foretold through Isaiah and the prophets and even the wicked wills of those who were freely and willingly complicit in the scheme to end his life were indeed playing necessarily into the hands of God. Their ignorance of God’s eternal plan, even though it was foretold to them by Isaiah, but not heeded through unbelief and a lack of recognition on their part- all colluded together to render the flawless plan of God into being.
(1 Corinthians 2:7) But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: (1 Corinthians 2:8) Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.
This begs the question: If even wicked plans made and carried out by evil men work to the glory of God then how much more so are things in accordance with his plan when good men work good at the hand of God? (Philippians 2:13) For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
And :(Ephesians 2:10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
This is not to encourage evil as Paul says: (Romans 3:8) And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
But for our encouragement things have happened this way to prove the axiom: (Romans 8:28) And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Romans 8:30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Romans 8:31) What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? (My emphasis)
We see the pattern of Christs story foretold long ago and laid down in the story of Joseph delivered up by his brethren in the Hebrew bible.
(Genesis 45:4) And Joseph said unto his brethren, Come near to me, I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt. (Genesis 45:5) Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life.(Genesis 45:7) And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. (Genesis 45:8) So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God:Joseph knew, as did Jesus, that he was delivered up (in this case to the Egyptians) by the wicked plans and betrayal of his brethren and yet at one and the same time it was by the good hand of God and for their own future good.
This is not to encourage evil as Paul says: (Romans 3:8) And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
But for our encouragement things have happened this way to prove the axiom: (Romans 8:28) And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Romans 8:30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Romans 8:31) What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? (My emphasis)
We see the pattern of Christs story foretold long ago and laid down in the story of Joseph delivered up by his brethren in the Hebrew bible.
(Genesis 45:4) And Joseph said unto his brethren, Come near to me, I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt. (Genesis 45:5) Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life.(Genesis 45:7) And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. (Genesis 45:8) So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God:Joseph knew, as did Jesus, that he was delivered up (in this case to the Egyptians) by the wicked plans and betrayal of his brethren and yet at one and the same time it was by the good hand of God and for their own future good.
The history of the Jewish people recorded in scripture is one of a seemingly endless cycle of faith, and lapses of faith, of unbelief and resulting catastrophe, and yet from our comfortable armchairs this side of Christ are we all that different? We readily take up the banner and proclaim the Glory, the Power and the Magnificence of our God, but when it comes down to actual cases how do we fare?
(Proverbs 21:1) The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
When someone desires to prove their power to another what does one do? They demonstrate it of course! If it is the power of the intellect, then a problem- solving contest is arranged, if a physical superiority, then feats of physical difficulty are involved. What would God do if he wished to reveal to people his unequalled power especially over the will of man? One can think of various stories of power against all odds- David Goliath, Elijah and the false prophets, the overcoming of Jericho and many other instances. But what of God's power over the human will? How could he demonstrate this? In the ancient world the king or emporer, the potentate was a symbol of the height of human power. If God could demonstrate his power over the human will then it would best be demonstrated over a king. But what sort of a king? A king that was zealous to do the bidding of God would be fine, but would it end all argument as to the absolute power of God over the human will? Clearly not!
From the human perspective we can only observe the outer actions of a man not really knowing his inner state, and so it would be only too easy to say that a willing King was merely co-operating with God when he dutifully did his bidding, hardly and not necessarily- a show of power in him. Then it must come down to a different approach. What better way of showing His power in a person than by showing that even in a kings unwillingness to obey the request of God (through an intermediary- Moses)- he, in his unwillingness, or rather, by his unwillingness- is still falling in with the will of God? What are we to say of such great power if, when the king refuses God's request he is actually doing what God wants, and when finally the king does agree he is of course still doing what God wants! What if this kings' unwillingness extended to such great lengths and at such great cost that it amounted to sheer madness not to obey? What if the cost of not obeying was increasingly desperate- but still he did not aquiesce- Would this show the power of God?(through his mad unwillingness) It reminds me of my father who, when I was very young, used to flip a coin- but before doing so would exclaim- "Heads I win, tails you lose!" It took me a while for the penny to drop.
Where do we find such a story as this? Look no further than the Exodus story of the battle of wills between Pharoah and Moses. Time and again this is exactly what happened. And how do we know we should interpret the story in this light?
We need look no further than Pauls letter to the Romans where under the power of the Holy Spirit he illuminates it for us: (Romans 9:15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Romans 9:16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
And now Paul gives here a direct quote from Exodus 9:16 (remember that "the scripture saith"- is God speaking through scripture) -(Romans 9:17) For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Interestingly the emphasis is not, that I might show my power to thee, like one king battling for supremecy externally over another, but the scripture says: that I might shew my power in thee
(Romans 9:18) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Paul argues that Gods sovereign power over mankind extends over their will according to his right as creator, sovereign, King. Even at the risk of being accused of injustice:(Romans 9:19) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? In other words how can God declare a persons guilt when his heart has been hardened by the infallible will of God! What was his answer? Did Paul launch into a longwinded discussion of the pros and cons? No!
(Romans 9:20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (Romans 9:21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?(Romans 9:22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: (Romans 9:23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, (Romans 9:24) Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of theGentiles?
(Emphasis mine.)
Paul is explicitly examining the relationship between the omnipotence of God and its effect on predestination and election and how it interacts with the human will and human sovereignty, in short the very problems we have been grappling with.
Let us turn back to Pharoah, but looking at particular expressions and how they occur over and over again- for our understanding: (To harden in the sense given below means- to cause one to resolutely stand firm against a repeated request or command)
What will follow are Excerpts from Strongs Exhaustive Concordance with respect to the words harden and hardened :
■(Exodus 4:21) And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
■(Exodus 7:1) And the LORD said unto Moses, …. (Exodus 7:3) And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
■(Exodus 14:1-4) And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, … And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. And they did so.
■(Exodus 14:15-17) And the LORD said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me?… (Exodus 14:17) And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians,
HARDENED
■(Exodus 7:13) And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
■(Exodus 7:14) And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go.
■(Exodus 7:22) And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.
■(Exodus 8:15) But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
■(Exodus 8:19) Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
■(Exodus 8:32) And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.
■(Exodus 9:7) And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.
■(Exodus 9:12) And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.
■(Exodus 9:34) And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.
■(Exodus 9:35) And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, neither would he let the children of Israel go; as the LORD had spoken by Moses.
■(Exodus 10:1) And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:
■(Exodus 10:20) But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.
■(Exodus 10:27) But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.
■(Exodus 11:10) And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.
■(Exodus 14:8) And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand. ( emphasis mine)
Was God making a point or what!-
There are times when Pharoah is said to harden his heart just as we would say of anyone who had clenched his jaw and with a face of flint refused to obey, there are times when it is baldly stated his heart was hardened and does not attribute a cause- but the overarching and undeniable sense of scripture is that God has the final say over the state of Pharoah's heart and yet not unjustly and neither with any sense of forcing Pharoah so that he was hardened against his will. To the outward observer and indeed to Pharoah himself all of his actions and his attitude appeared perfectly natural and without compulsion, and yet by the indubitable and insistent testimony of scripture- it was the work of God in him. Pharoahs actions were entirely consistent and compatible with his own nature, with who he was as a man.
"must God stand quietly by, cap in hand, to beg our permission?"
Conclusion:It may be mere detail, but given the power of scripture to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart- and to rightly divide fine distinctions between truth and error- it should at least give rise to some suspicion when we find entirely absent from the whole New Testament any mention of "freewill" whatsoever, let alone any cogent exposition of it as a doctrine. And where mention of it is made in the Old Testament, it is invariably used with reference to a spontaneous act of giving as opposed to the prescribed giving- that we associate with tithing. It has more to do with "voluntary" acts, free of moral imperative, than total independence from God. Taken in itself it gives us no warrant to expand and absolutize it into a doctrine that has impacted attitudes out of all proportion to reality. "Freewill" as it is commonly believed by both Evangelical Christianity and secular humanist alike has become the lens through which all other realities, (God included) must conform. As a presupposition that is basic to the worldview of both Christians and atheists alike it leaves nothing uncoloured by its jaundiced view of reality. Remember first principles: any doctrine that questions or brings to doubt the nature of God in any of his perfections (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, eternal, uncaused, self-existent etc.) needs careful consideration. What then? Shall we continue to boast about our sovereignty, foolishly thinking God must stand quietly by, cap in hand, to beg our permission? Or that nothing happens but that humanity must rubber stamp it? God is gracious with us, but let us not tempt him, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!
