Part 4: Biblical Theism, Divine Decrees

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Author’s Note: This another division in the general field of Biblical Theism will appear in two articles. The present article, being the first, is to be followed by the second in the next issue of Bibliotheca Sacra and will conclude the discussion on the Divine Decrees.]

Introduction

In its theological implications, the term Decree betokens the plan by which God has proceeded in all His acts of creation and continuation. That He has such a plan is not only the justified deduction of reason—He being perfect in wisdom—, but is the clear testimony of the Bible. Those numerous passages which assert the decree, the purpose, the determinate counsel, the foreknowledge, the foreordination, and the election, by which God is said to act, combine to establish the truth that, either directly or indirectly and as stated in the Westminster Confession, He originates and executes “Whatsoever cometh to pass.” No deductions concerning God could be more dishonoring or misleading than the suppositions that He is not sovereign over His works, or that He is not working according to a plan which articulates the dictation of infinite intelligence. Could the imagination of man picture a situation before any creative act of God was wrought, when God, as it were, had before Him an infinite variety of possible plans or blueprints from which to choose—each and every one of which represented a possible program of divine action as far-reaching and elaborate as the one now being executed—, it would be reasonable and honoring to God to conclude that the present plan as ordained and as it is being achieved is, and in the end will prove to be, the best plan and purpose that could have been devised by infinite wisdom, consummated by infinite power, and that which will be the supreme satisfaction to infinite love. Such an exercise of the imagination would be at fault in the one particular, namely, that it supposes that the plan and purpose of God which is now in process has not been in anticipation from all eternity. This fact but serves to emphasize the point in view which is that the present plan is as perfect as its Author. It is most essential to clear thinking on the part of devout minds that all suggestions which tend to imply that God is not following a plan which is worthy of Him, or that He is but partially in authority, or that He has failed and is seeking to salvage something out of the wreckage, or that He is conforming to existing things over which He has no control, shall be rejected; and that, in spite of the immediate problems which the presence of sin and suffering create, it shall be accredited to God that, in the end, He shall have wrought that which alone is consonant with infinite wisdom and goodness. Such an evaluation of the present order is demanded in the light of the revelation, already considered, as to the essential character of God; being the only conclusion which unprejudiced reason can approve.

When weighing the facts of the sovereignty of God in the execution of His eternal purpose, problems arise—problems more difficult than those encountered when weighing the truths concerning God’s Person and attributes. In the latter instance, knowable realities are projected into infinity, but without the element of seeming contradiction. In the former instance, or when contemplating divine sovereignty as seen in the control by a holy God over a universe into which sin has entered and in which there is said to be the freedom to act on the part of beings other than the Sovereign God, conflicting relationships arise. Some of these problems cannot be solved in this world, they never have been solved here, nor will they ever be. In the previous discussion the issue which the presence of sin in the world engenders was approached in the light of divine foreknowledge. It must now be approached in the light of the divine purpose and permission. When this issue is reduced to its lowest dimensions, there remain but two general overtures: either (1) that God is sovereign and all that ever has existed or will exist is within His plan, or (2) that He is not sovereign and there is more or less in the universe which exists in defiance of His holy character and over which He has no authority. The latter overture, in the extreme form in which it is here presented, is discredited by all devout and thoughtful individuals; though too often some modification of that overture is adopted as a supposed release from the burden which the problem of sin in God’s universe imposes. No modifications of divine sovereignty can be allowed without challenging the worthiness of God. Not a vestige of a praise-worthy conception of God remains in the mind of the one who supposes that, to the slightest degree, God has failed, has been defeated, or that He is making light of sin. Insuperable difficulties arise in the outworking of either of these overtures; but those engendered by the former are far less than those engendered by the latter. It is, therefore, better to approach the difficulties from the position wherein the absolute sovereignty of God and worthiness of all His works are upheld. No doubt should be entertained as to the just and authoritative way in which God achieves His ends. Having established by the investigation of the attributes of God, the holy character of God, His infinite righteousness, His omniscience and omnipotence, it is incumbent upon the rational mind to approach the difficulties, which arise when an adjustment is attempted of all that the sovereignty of God imposes, from the standpoint of all that God has been proven to be. At its best, man’s understanding is fallible and this limitation is ever being demonstrated by the shallow and hasty way in which men deal with these difficulties. To suspect the wisdom of men is not a serious matter, yea, they might all be found to be liars without transgressing the bounds of revelation concerning the moral corruption of the human heart. It is, however, a most serious thing to suspect the wisdom, holiness, or authority of God. Moses has recorded in Deuteronomy 29:29 that there are secret things which belong to God, and that there are revealed things which belong to men. It is folly to suppose that the revealed things include all that there is to be known. The theologue is not to be discredited but rather commended who, when confronted with the secret things of God, is able to say, I do not know.

Concerning revealed things, it may be said again that very much that belongs in that category has no part in the divine message to the unregenerate, to whom the things of God are, at most, only “foolishness” (1 Cor 2:14). Likewise, much that is revealed belongs not at all to those among the regenerate who, because of their immaturity or carnality, can receive only the “milk of the word.” Some portions of the divine revelation, being divinely classed as “strong meat,” are not intended for babes. The extent of harm that has been wrought in certain periods of the church’s history by the indiscriminate preaching to all classes of men of the doctrines of Sovereignty, Predestination, and Election, cannot be estimated. Unregenerate men are not burdened with the necessity of ascertaining whether they are elect or not. God speaks to them with absolute faithfulness to the end that they may exercise faith in His Son as their Savior and thereby be saved. The evangelist when declaring his message to lost men properly ignores all problems which arise concerning issues which belong to conditions obtaining before the fall of man. It is enough for the unregenerate to know that they are rightfully condemned and that a perfect salvation is secured for them through the saving grace of God in Christ Jesus. Unlike to this, it is incumbent on the student of theology, to whom God’s deeper revelation is addressed, to penetrate into that which may be known as to how man came to be lost and what could have brought it to pass in the midst of a universe wherein a holy God rules supreme. Speaking of God’s saving grace for the unregenerate, Bishop Moule declares: “Grace is the unmerited complement of need”; but, it may be added, the Gospel of Grace includes the discussion of no obscure and difficult themes such as surround the doctrine of Election or of the permission of sin in the world. Nor are such themes adapted to backward saints such as the Apostle described when he said: “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat” (Heb 5:12).

1. The Decree of God

The doctrine of Divine Decree is only another method of assigning to God the position of First Cause of all that exists. There is one all-comprehensive plan in which all things have their place and by which they proceed. The Westminster Shorter Catechism asserts that it is “his eternal purpose according to the counsel of his own will, whereby he hath foreordanied whatever comes to pass” (Question 7). God did not, however, decree anything concerning Himself-as to His existence, His attributes, the mode of His subsistence in three Persons, or any inherent relationship or assumptions of responsibilities within the Godhead. Nor did God decree regarding His own existence and transitive acts as though He commanded Himself to create, to uphold, or to govern His universe. The decree of God relates to His acts which are immanent and intrinsic and are outside His own Being.

The term Decree of God appears first in the singular, since God has but one all-inclusive plan. He sees all things at a glance. For convenience, the separate features of this plan may be called the decrees of God; but there should be no implication in this that the infinite understanding of God advances by steps or in a train. Nor is there any possibility that the one plan will be altered by omissions or additions. Nor is it true that God sustains a distinct and unrelated purpose concerning each aspect of His one intention. With God there is one immutable decree embracing in itself every detail, even the falling of a sparrow. It is the divine cognition from all eternity. “Known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the world” (Acts 15:18).

It should be observed that God formed His decree in eternity, though its execution is in time. The decree being eternal, all its parts are, in the mind of God, but one intuition; though in its realization there is succession. Christ’s earthly mission was seen in one conception; yet an interval of thirty-three years fell between His birth and His death. He was “foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times” (1 Pet 1:20). Augustine states: “God willeth not one thing now, and another anon; but once, and at once, and always, he willeth all things that he willeth; not again and again, nor now this, now that; nor willeth afterwards, what before he willed not, nor willeth not, what before he willed; because such a will is mutable; and no mutable thing is eternal.”[1] The power to conceive of a thing as a whole before it is executed in the order which its intention requires, is not altogether outside the range of finite minds. There is every reason to believe that Solomon foresaw and designed every detail of the temple before any work was begun. That vision accorded him was as comprehensive concerning those features that were to be wrought out at the end of the process as concerning those which were first in the order of procedure. The capstone is no less evident in the architeet’s mind than is the foundation. It is true that human foresight is subject to development and change, which mutability is never true of the divine archetypal vision.

Having thus emphasized the eternal character of the Divine Decree, it may yet be added that the Decree of God is wise, being the product of infinite wisdom. There is a worthy reason for all that God has ever done or will do. Even His permission of evil will, like the wrath of man, be made to praise Him (Ps 76:10). “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” (Rom 11:33).

Likewise, the Divine Decree is free. “Who hath directed the spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?” (Isa 40:10). Being alone when His decree was made, His determinations were influenced by no other being. Aside from the fact that He must act according to His wisdom and holiness, He was free to do or not to do. Within the sphere of His perfections, He could do what He would. It is near to impiety to assert that God could not have done otherwise than He has done, though it is probable that He would not have done otherwise, being guided by that which is worthy of Himself.

Lastly, the Divine Decree is absolutely unconditional. The execution of it is in no way suspended upon conditions which may or may not emerge. The Arminian notion that the will of man is sovereign in its power to resist the Almighty must be denied, since it is everywhere refuted in the history of God’s dealing with men. God may, for good reasons, allow man’s will to prevail; but He does not have to do so. He has power over every will to cause it to do His good pleasure. “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” (Isa 46:10). “Who worketh all things after the counsel of his will” (Eph 1:11). Such a statement could not be made in truthfulness if the execution of His purpose depended upon a cooperation with others which was in their power to withhold. This phase of the theme is yet to be attended more at length.

Reference may be made again to the distinction within the knowledge which God holds concerning future events, by which He recognizes some things as merely possible but never to become actual and therefore not to be included in His eternal decree, and things which are divinely determined. Of the total which all His knowledge and all His Almighty power might achieve, He purposed to do some things only, and that purpose made those specific things forever certain. There are those who at this point would intrude another distinction within the knowledge of God. They claim to recognize that certain things—notably the free acts of men—are not at all derived from God, but rather from the creature. To these free acts it is asserted that God could have no relation other than to foreknow what the creature will do. This notion is advanced by those who maintain that God’s decrees are conditional to the end that some are chosen to eternal life on the basis of divine foresight as to their faith and obedience. This theory, if it were true, would support the wholly unscriptural idea that, in the end, men are saved on the ground of their own merit and worthiness. This claim not only opposes the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, but leaves the question as to whether God is the Author of sin unanswered and places God in the unworthy position of being dependent upon His creatures. The Scriptures, while recognizing a freedom of action in man, do, nevertheless, assert that man is not exempt from the control of his Creator. It may be said that God does know what the actions of men will be when placed under certain circumstances. It is equally true that He is the Author of circumstances. God knew that when placed under the circumstances which obtained, Adam would fall. God could have arranged matters otherwise, but this He did not do. The question as to the relation between the divine and the human responsibility is, in such a development, exceedingly complex. God did not fail to warn Adam, nor, when pronouncing sentence upon him after his sin, did God assume any portion of the responsibility. It may be further observed that had Adam obeyed God, as God commanded him to do, there would have been no need of a Redeemer; yet the Redeemer as well as the need for Him was evidently in the decree of God from all eternity (Rev 13:8). This problem, yet to be considered more fully, is far-reaching; but is not solved by any theory which seeks escape from the difficulties through the exit of a supposed irresponsible divine foreknowledge.

If no certain knowledge of God were accorded to men, they might be pardoned for supposing that God does not know what He is doing, that He has no power to rescue Himself from the dilemmas into which ignorance would plunge Him, or that He maintains no standards of holiness. Such conclusions might be accounted for among heathen people to whom no revelation has come. But God is revealed to men and they are without excuse if they hold conceptions of Him which disregard His perfections. Problems exist; but every such must be approached and solved—in so far as they can be solved—without the slightest departure from the altogether worthiness of God. Certain systems of theology begin with man, center about man, and end with man; and God is introduced only as He conforms to this man-centered notion. On the other hand, certain systems of theology begin with God, center about God, and end with God; and man is introduced only as he conforms to this God-centered idea. It is obvious as to which of these two general systems the Bible lends its support, and which, in the end, gives rest and satisfaction to the heart of man. The greatest of all problems emerges when man directs his thoughts to the sovereignty of God and all that sovereignty implies. These problems are never solved by minimizing God, holiness, sin, or human responsibility. Published systems of theology which either omit the doctrine of Divine Decree, or oppose the doctrine, are justly reprehensible. They remove the rudder from the ship and set it afloat subject to wind and tide. It is a dishonor even to a man to assert that he does not act with purposed, rational ends in view, or that he does not employ worthy means to realize those ends. The doctrine of Divine Decree of itself introduces nothing mysterious or profound. It declares that God both designed and willed before He acted, and that all His actions are in harmony with His perfect character and attributes. Problems appear when man with his own free will, and the fact of sin, enter upon the scene.

The term Divine Decree is an attempt to gather up in one designation that to which the Scriptures refer by various designations-the divine purpose (Eph 1:11), determinate counsel (Acts 2:23), foreknowledge, (1 Pet 1:2, cf. 1:20), election (1 Thess 1:4), predestination (Rom 8:30), the divine will (Eph 1:11), and the divine good pleasure (Eph 1:9). When reference is made to divine counsels it does not suggest conference on the part of God with other beings, but that His counsels are consummately wise. In like manner, the reference to the divine will does not suggest capricious or unreasonable action. Infinite wisdom directs the divine determination. In this sense His decree is said to be the “counsel of his will.” These terms certainly signify that God acts only according to an eternal purpose which incorporates all things.

When seeking to arrive at a right understanding of the doctrine of the Divine Decree, it is essential to distinguish Decree from Predestination and Predestination from Election and Retribution. The divine Decree embraces all that was or is future. Whatever was to transpire in time was decreed from eternity, whether good or evil, whether great or small, whether wrought directly by God or indirectly through agencies. The decree itself provided for the free actions of creatures and included what men are pleased to call accidents. Regarding that which is good in contradistinction to that which is evil, a discrimination is usually made: the one being by divine appointment and the other by divine permission. The divine decree embraces the entire on-going of the universe including things material and things immaterial. The term Predestination is restricted to the creatures of God whether angelic or human and, regardless of the fact that in the Scriptures it is usually applied to those that are good, is, in its larger meaning properly used concerning the destination of all created beings—some of whom are the elect and some reprobate. Again, Election is narrower in its meaning than predestination, since it refers only to those who are in right relations to God and destined to eternal blessings, and over against this is retribution which includes in its designation all that are non-elect.

Had not sin entered into the universe and had all creatures remained in their first estate, it is probable that no objection to the doctrine of Divine Decree, with its recognition of sovereignty, would have been called forth. In this connection it is worthy of note that there are vast realms of the universe and spheres of the divine authority wherein the divine sovereignty has not been controverted. Within what is, comparatively, an exceedingly limited portion of the universe, holiness and sin are now in dispute and the duration of this conflict is restricted to that inconceivable fraction of eternity which is represented by time. He who in the eternity past reigned supreme, will yet reign in the eternity to come with all enemies destroyed. It is an improbability of surpassing magnitude—even when subjected to reason alone—that He who reigns in all eternity over the vast domain of the universe, has met His defeat and become impotent rather than omnipotent in the face of moral issues which in His eternal counsels He has permitted to exist for a restricted time. The Scriptures assert the never-failing sovereignty of God, and never more emphatically than when they predict the fast-approaching hour when sin shall be no more. Who, indeed, is determining the hour when sin shall cease? Is it to cease by mere caprice? Or does God sustain no more vital relation to its cessation than to foreknow that it will cease? Who maketh wars to cease? By whose power and authority will Satan be bound and confined to the abyss and finally cast into the lake of fire? Who prepared that lake of fire? Is it a mere accident, about which God only foreknows, that this universe will yet be purged of all evil? Or is it a fable that the Creator will yet pronounce sentence upon His every foe? To God alone be majesty, dominion, and power for ever and ever—Amen!

Having thus ascribed a feeble note of praise to God, it now is necessary—as is incumbent upon all students of Biblical Theism—to give attention to the problems which the theme of divine sovereignty engenders. There are issues involved in such a contemplation which are too vast for the finite mind to fathom, and no intelligent, reverent person will be surprised to discover the boundaries of his finite mind. When standing on the border line between the finite and the infinite, between time and eternity, between the perfect, irresistible will of God and the impotent, perverted will of man, between sovereign grace and hell-deserving sin, who among men is too proud to exclaim, There are some things which I do not understand?

The perplexing issues which arise are not the burden of any particular system of theology. They belong properly to all, and none is commendable which assumes that it is not concerned with such issues.

It is probable that these questions are difficult largely because of man’s limited knowledge of the essential character of sin, of the essential yet widely different scope of the human will as compared with the divine will, and of the true and ultimate purpose of God. With these qualifying facts in mind, the problems are, as to their general amplitude, really but two, namely, (1) the moral problem, or the fact that evil is present in a universe over which God reigns supreme; and (2) the problem of the will, or the seeming irreconcilability of the free-will of man with the sovereignty of God. These are now to be examined.

a. Two Basic Problems

(1) The moral problems

The permission and presence of sin in the universe over which the infinitely holy God rules interpolates a clash of ideas which in all its involvements no human mind can fully harmonize. Considering the two dissonant realities, namely, God and sin, it is certain that the solution of the difficulty will not be discovered in the direction of any assumption that God was unable to prevent sin from eventuating in the universe, or that He cannot cause it to cease at any moment of time. To the same end, it is certain that the dilemma will not be adjusted or relieved by any supposition that sin is not exceedingly sinful in the sight of God-that which He hates with a perfect hatred. The issue must stand without modification that God, who is actively and infinitely holy and who is utterly free in all His enterprises, being able to create or not create and to exclude evil from that which He did create, has, nevertheless, permitted evil to appear and run its course in angelic and human spheres. This perplexity is also intensified to a measureless degree by the fact that God knew when He permitted sin to be manifest that it would cost Him the greatest sacrifice it is possible for God to make-even the death of His Son. The Scriptures state with abundant certainty that (a) God is all-powerful and is not, therefore, imposed upon by sin against His permissive will; (b) that God is perfectly holy and hates sin unqualifiedly; and (c) that sin is present in the universe with all its injury to created beings and that this injury, because of the failure of some to enter into redeeming grace, will continue upon them for all eternity to come.

If the Scriptures assert a thing to be true, it should be so received by every Christian. Should there seem to be a conflict of ideas, as noted above, the fact remains that the Biblical account of each item in the consideration is true; the perplexity being attributable to insufficient understanding by the human mind. The Bible attempts no explanation of those dilemmas which men observe. The seeming conflict of ideas evidently has no reality, or existence in the mind of God. By attentive contemplation of certain issues, the perplexity may be somewhat relieved.

(a) The essential nature of sin

Though the whole field of Hamartiology is indicated at this point in this discussion, its full treatment must be reserved for its rightful place as a subdivision of Anthropology. The problem of the presence of sin in God’s universe is lessened to no small degree when due consideration is given to the precise nature of sin. Too often it has been assumed that evil is a divine creation and therefore had no actuality until God gave it place among existing things; whereas evil, as an abstract reality, is no more a created thing than is virtue. So long as God has existed, virtue has existed, and so long as virtue has existed, there has been a conceivable opposite to it; though there was not the slightest possibility that the opposite of virtue could find expression until beings were created who had the ability to sin. Such a deduction is not to be judged as even a mild form of Dualism, else the foreknowledge of God which foresaw the present conflict between good and evil, and, in fact, the present conflict itself, is Dualism. How in the purpose of God could the Lamb be slain, as an offering for sin, from all eternity if the potential fact of evil were not under divine consideration? On the other hand, the problem as to how evil could enter the universe and find manifestation by divine permission only, is most difficult to comprehend. So far as the first human sin is concerned, there was a sinister tempter present to whom much responsibility is assigned; but in the case of the first sin of the angels the issue is baffling indeed, for neither outward temptation nor inward depravity were present. Certainly a passive divine permission generates no impelling disposition to evil. This feature of the whole inquiry relative to the permission of sin is doubtless its intrinsic essence or nature, and is wholly outside the range of finite comprehension.

As to what purpose the presence of sin in the universe may serve, various suggestions have been advanced, none of which, nor all combined, have proven a complete answer to the question. (a) The ultimate purpose of God being to bring men into the similitude of Himself, they, to reach this end, must come to know to some degree what God knows. They must recognize the evil character of sin. This God knows intuitively; but such knowledge can be gained by creatures only through observation and experience. Obviously, if the divine purpose is to be realized, evil must be permitted its manifestation. What the demonstration of sin and the experience of it may mean to angels is not revealed. (b) There is that in God which no creature had ever seen-though they had viewed His glory, His wisdom, and His power-, namely, His grace toward the fallen and sinful. But no demonstration of grace is possible unless there are objects of grace, and there could be no objects of grace apart from the presence and experience of sin. (c) Likewise, the principle of sin—a thing opposite to virtue—must be brought into complete and final judgment. The universe must be purged of the realities of sin and its possibilities. An abstract thing cannot be rightfully judged until it has become concrete. Thus it may be judged in its actual character, as it was judged at the cross. But the very bringing of evil into concrete form involved its present manifestation in the universe.

From these suggestions, proffered by reason, it may be concluded that the primary divine purpose was neither to avoid the presence of sin in the universe, for God could have prevented it, nor to dispose of it before His appointed time, for its whole reality could be terminated and dismissed at any moment by a word of His command. That there may be many sons in glory capable of singing the song or redemption (Rev 5:9) and that the whole universe may be purged of all evil, are knowledge-surpassing divine purposes; but these desired ends are wholly dependent for their fruition upon the presence of sin in the world. Such contemplation should never lessen the human estimation of the divine hatred for sin, nor be any encouragement to a creature to sin. That sin is infinitely evil is demonstrated by the ruin it has wrought among the angels, the present depravity of humanity with all its woes, and the fact that no cure for sin could be formed at a less cost than the blood of the Son of God. It is near to an unpardonable assumption for the finite mind to presume to evalue and sit in judgment upon the course which God pursues. He is trustworthy and should be trusted wholly. “He doeth all things well,” and it is the worthy anticipation of every believer that he shall be satisfied when he awakes in His likeness (Ps 17:15).

(b) The permission of sin

Calvinistic theologians generally have made a distinction within the whole field of occurrences embraced in the divine decree, dividing these vast issues into two aggregations-the decrees which they are pleased to style as efficacious and those which they style as permissive. The efficacious decrees are those which determine occurrences directly by physical causes (Job 28:26), and by spiritual forces (Phil 2:13; Eph 2:8, 10; 4:24). The permissive decrees embrace only moral features which are evil. The term permissive intimates that God does not actively promote the execution of the decrees that are thus indicated. In contrast to the efficacious, energizing divine purpose which works to the end that men will and do His good pleasure, He, as a permission, “in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways” (Acts 14:16); “He gave them their own desires” (Ps 78:29; cf. 106:15). In respect to His permissive will, it is claimed, God determines not to hinder the course of action which His creatures pursue; but He does determine to regulate and control the bounds and the results of such actions. Howe has said on this point: “God’s permissive will is his will to permit whatsoever he thinks fit to permit, or, not to hinder; while what he so wills or determines so to permit, he intends also to regulate, and not to behold as an idle unconcerned spectator, but to dispose all those permissa unto wise and great ends of his own.”[2]

Due consideration should be given to the fact that, in permitting sin, God decrees the thing which He hates, and which, as has been noted, would cost Him the greatest of all sacrifices. Such a decree is related to His “good pleasure,” only to the extent that He, for reasons known unto Himself, permits evil its entrance and present procedure. The problem is confessedly a difficult one for all concerned; but it does not stand alone. The permission of evil continues with every succeeding hour of human history. That which in His own counsels He did not hinder in the beginning, He does not hinder in all its subsequent development. The manifestation of evil must run its determined course and arrive at its determined ends. The Arminian approach to the solution of this problem assigns to God no relation to the advent of sin into the universe other than that He foreknew that it would eventuate. This view is wholly inadequate, since foreknowledge on the part of God carries with it, of necessity, all the force of a sovereign purpose. A thing cannot be foreknown that is not certain, and nothing is certain until God’s sovereign decree makes it thus. Objection to the doctrine of Divine Decree is raised by some on the ground that it renders human actions necessary. But human action is no less necessary when viewed from the standpoint of foreknowledge than from divine decree. The least of all things which God foreknows can no more be uncertain than the universe itself. God created angels and men with the full cognizance that they would sin. Reason asserts that the responsibility for the issues of His creation must, in the end, rest upon the Creator. On this theme the Scriptures give final revelation. At no point are creatures permitted to trace responsibility from themselves back to God. When God pronounced judgment upon Adam, He did not say I am partly to blame since I created you. The blame rested on Adam alone. The race fell in Adam and became what they are, “the children of wrath” (Eph 2:3), and the original sin with all its fruitage is never predicated to God in any degree. This principle obtains as well in the sphere of rewards which are yet to be given to the faithful. It is to be acknowledged by all that each and every virtue or worthy service is wrought only by the enabling power of the Spirit of God, yet, when conferring His rewards, God is not expected to say, I claim the larger share in all you did for me. The honor and credit for service will rest upon the faithful alone as undividedly as though they had wrought it in their own strength.

The divine permission of evil in the human sphere extends beyond the one sin of Adam. It is written that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart to the end that demonstration of divine power might be fully displayed. By that demonstration the whole multitude of the Egyptians came to know something of Jehovah (Exod 14:4). Again, and as a revelation concerning God’s attitude toward sin, the fact is obvious that God commanded Adam not to sin, and yet, unless Adam did sin, there would be no need of the Redeemer, of which Redeemer it had been decreed in eternal ages before Adam that He would come (Rev 13:8). Similarly, God said to King Saul that if he had kept the commandments given to him his house would have been established forever (1 Sam 13:13); yet by decree it was determined and prophecy foretold that the everlasting throne and kingdom for Israel was to come through the tribe of Judah and not through the tribe of Benjamin, to which tribe Saul belonged (Gen 49:10). To the same end it may be perceived that, in the controversy between Jehovah and Satan as recorded in the first two chapters of Job, Satan admits that he can bring no testing upon Job apart from the permission of Jehovah; and it is stated that Jehovah gave Satan this permission. Again, the experience of an individual who sins is suggestive. After the sin has been committed, the one who sins could say: God is to be blamed. He could have prevented me from sinning, but He did not. That, however, the sinner does not say, since there is within him a consciousness that he alone is responsible. Martyrs could have prevented the sin of murder on the part of their slayers had they but recanted from the position relative to the truth in question. Even Christ Himself could have prevented an uncounted number of men from the measureless sin of the crucifixion of the Son of God had He come down from the cross. All this suggests the obvious fact that the mere avoidance of sin is not always the primary issue.

With all these situations in view, the candid mind refuses to predicate sin to God either directly or indirectly.

It may be concluded, then, that sin is in the universe by the permission of God who hates it perfectly and who, being sovereign, had power to keep it from manifestation, had He chosen to do so. That He did not hinder the manifestation of sin, demonstrates that He, being what He is, must have a purpose in view other than the averting of sin. Here as nowhere else in the affairs of the universe, the end justifies the means.

(2) The problem of the will

This difficulty lends itself to various presentations. It may in general be stated thus: If God be sovereign and only those things occur which are determined in His decree, is there any sphere left in which a creature may exercise his own free-will? Or, again, could the human will ever act outside the decree of God, and, if it does not, is its action free?

To the problem stated in these questions, more or less clarifying answers have been made. But before these answers are considered, it is well to give some attention to the precise nature of the issues involved.

As first created, both angels and men were gladly and perfectly subject to the will of God. Such, indeed, is the present estate of unfallen angels and concerning them and the exercise of their wills there is no need to inquire. They are determined to do only that which pleases God. Freedom to do otherwise is accorded them as fully as it was accorded those angels “who kept not their first estate” (Jude 1:6). They continue in His will and doubtless will do so throughout eternity. The first sin to be committed in heaven and in the universe itself was committed by the greatest of all the angels and before—perhaps ages before—the creation of man. The angel who first sinned in heaven is described, both as to his person and divine appointment, in Ezekiel 28:11–15 and under the title of “the king of Tyrus.” The nature of that sin is recorded in Isaiah 14:12–14 where that angel is introduced under the title of “Lucifer, son of the morning,” and where the precise character of his fivefold sin is revealed. It will be seen that the sin consists in the exercise of the angel’s will in opposition to the will of God. No imagination could picture nor could any language express the awfulness of the moment when for the first time a creature opposed the sovereign will of his Creator. It was this same being who as the consummation of his own sin had said, “I will be like the Most High” (Isa 14:14), that later appeared in the Garden of Eden and, following the creation of man, there counseled the first man and woman to be as God (Elohim, cf. Dan 5:11). The A.V. translation, “Be as gods,” is open to question, since the name of Deity which is used here by the Spirit is Elohim. It is a plural name, indeed, but is the original from which the English title God is almost universally translated throughout the Old Testament. He who had sinned and fallen by saying, “I will be like the Most High,” now proposes to unfallen man that he by disobedience Be as God. Only in the one respect-independence—could either angel or man be as God.

Over against this, it is revealed that the perfect manhood of Christ was wholly subject to the will of His Father. It is written of Him that, “when he cometh into the world, he saith, ...Lo, I come...to do thy will, O God” (Heb 10:5–7; cf. Ps 40:6–8). There could be no perfect humanity or creaturehood which is not completely subject to the will of God; and the first step in salvation on the part of those for whom redemption is provided is that they shall obey the gospel (Acts 5:32; 2 Thess 1:8; Heb 5:9; 1 Pet 4:17). With this provision in view, there is no need that any should be lost who desire to be saved.

The human choice of that which is good, like the choice of that which is evil, originates within, as the individual’s volition and is free in the sense that the individual is not conscious of any necessity being imposed upon him. All human action is included in this conception. Since human action appears to be restrained by nothing other than moral suasion or by emotions, the interrogation is in order as to what extent the human will is free. Over against the sense of freedom to act which the individual experiences, the Scriptures teach that there are far-reaching restraints upon that will. Of the unregenerate it is asserted that they, being children of disobedience, are energized (ἐνεργέω—energeo) by Satan (Eph 2:2); which fact denotes almost unlimited domination over those thus energized. Concerning the regenerate it is revealed that “it is God which worketh [ἐνεργέω] in you” (Phil 2:13); which fact denotes almost unlimited domination by God over those who are saved. Thus the entire human family—both those who are unsaved and those who are saved—is included, and not one of these is really free from a superior influence. This influence, potent as it is, may be wholly unrecognized within the range of human experience. The Bible plainly asserts that God influences the unregenerate, as, to some extent, Satan and the power of a fallen nature influence the regenerate. The influence of God upon the unregenerate must be exercised if ever they turn to Him in saving faith. Christ declared, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” (John 6:44); and the Apostle has written by the Spirit, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8, cf. Phil 1:22). Much perplexity is caused by the statements that God at times hinders spiritual vision and hardens hearts. He commanded concerning Israel: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed” (Isa 6:10). This is a judgment upon the nation for their evil ways and serves also as the blinding of that people, as predicted, throughout the present age in which Jews and Gentiles alike are confronted with the saving grace of God and His purpose in the out-calling of the Church (Rom 11:25). Seven times it is stated that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exod 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:21, 27; 11:10; Rom 9:17, 18), and three times it is said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exod 8:15, 32; 9:34; cf. Deut 2:30. Note, also, Exod 7:13, 22; 8:19). Thus it is also recorded in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 that God shall give the people of the coming tribulation age “strong delusion” (or, better, the working of delusion) that they should believe the falsehood. This delusion is to the end that they all may be judged who received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. There is no mere permissiveness here or in the case of Pharaoh. God is definitely said to be the cause of these states of heart, as He is also the cause of Israel’s blindness. In these instances, as elsewhere and often, God apparently asks not to be relieved from the direct responsibility that He causes all that is predicated of Him. It is certain that in the above-named instances, God does not create the evil heart, but rather brings out into overt action that which is latent within the heart to the end that it may be judged. “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth” (Rom 9:18).

The will of the creature is a creation of God and in relation to it God sustains no timidity nor uncertainty. He made the creature’s will as an instrument by which He might accomplish His sovereign purpose and it is inconceivable that it should ever thwart His purpose. As bearing upon the sovereignty of God over all creatures, the student should read with reverent attention Isaiah 40:10–31 and Job 38:1 to 41:34.

When exercising his will, man is conscious only of his freedom of action. He determines his course by circumstances; but God is the author of circumstances. Man is impelled by emotions; but God is able to originate and to control every human emotion. Man prides himself that he is governed by experienced judgment; but God is able to foster each and every thought or determination of the human mind. God will mold and direct in all secondary causes until His own eternal purpose is realized. How else could He fulfill His covenants which commit Him to the control of the actions and destinies of men to the end of time and into eternity? His election is sure; for whom He predestinates, them-not more nor less—He calls; and whom He calls, them—not more nor less—He justifies; and whom He justifies, them—not more nor less—He glorifies. When predestinating, He assumes the responsibility of creating, calling, saving, and completing according to His own purpose. In calling He moves those to believe to the saving of their souls whom He has chosen. In justifying He provides a substitutionary, efficacious Savior by whose death and resurrection He is legally able to place the chief of sinners in as perfect relation to Himself as that of His own Son. And in glorifying He perfects all that infinite love has designed. The precise number that will be glorified will be the precise number and the same individuals—not more nor less—that He predestinated. Each one will have believed, have been saved, have been perfected, and presented like Christ in glory. Men enter consciously into this great undertaking only at the one point of believing, or responding to the efficacious call. Naturally, it seems to them that they, acting in freedom within the restricted sphere of their consciousness, determine everything. Their action is vital, for no link in God’s chain can be lacking. The point where misunderstanding arises is with reference to the fact that, so far as their cognizance serves them, they are certain that they act freely; yet every truly regenerate person will testify that he would not have turned to God apart from that all-important divine drawing of his heart. Divine election is absolute. If this seems to some to be taking things out of the hands of men and committing them into the hands of God, it will at least be conceded that, when thus committed to God, things are in better hands; and this, after all, is God’s own universe in which He has sovereign right to do after the dictates of His own will. It will also be conceded that the sphere of human action, so far as it can mean anything in the sphere of human consciousness, is left in perfect freedom of action. It should be deemed no crime on the part of God that He discloses to His own elect that His sovereign power and purpose are working through and over all human forces and secondary causes.

Writing of the proposed solutions of the problem which two wills engender, Dr. John Dick states: “Here we come to a question which has engaged the attention, and exercised the ingenuity, and perplexed the wits of men in every age. If God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, the whole series of events is necessary, and human liberty is taken away. Men are passive instruments in the hands of their Maker; they can do nothing but what they are secretly and irresistibly influenced to do; they are not, therefore, responsible for their actions; and God is the Author of sin. To this objection it is replied, that the divine decree is extrinsic to the human mind; that it exerts no force or influence upon our faculties; and that, while it insures the futurition of events, it leaves them to be accomplished in the exercise of our liberty. While it determines that some things should be brought to pass necessarily, it determines that other things should be brought to pass freely. God has decreed, not only that men should act, but that they should act freely, and agreeably to their rational nature. He determined the act; but men being free agents, it was possible, in respect of their liberty abstractly considered, that they might act differently. When, however, you have reflected upon this answer, and stripped it of its technical form, you will find that it amounts to nothing. It just says, that, notwithstanding the decree of God, man retains his liberty of action; and, consequently, puts us off with an assertion under the pretext of giving us an explanation. Believing that all things are immutably fixed in the divine counsels, we wish to know how the predetermination is consistent with liberty. To what purpose is it to tell us, that God has decreed that some things shall take place necessarily, and other things freely? What information does this answer give us? what doubt does it solve? Still the question remains, How can those actions be free, which were so fixed that they could not be avoided?

“It is a more intelligible method to explain the subject by the doctrine which makes liberty consist in the power of acting according to the prevailing inclination, or the motive which appears strongest to the mind. Those actions are free which are the effect of volition. In whatever manner the state of mind which gave rise to the volition has been produced, the liberty of the agent is neither greater nor less. It is his will alone which is to be considered, and not the means by which it has been determined. If God foreordained certain actions, and placed men in such circumstances that the actions would certainly take place agreeably to the laws of the mind, men are nevertheless moral agents, because they act voluntarily, and are responsible for the actions which consent has made their own. Liberty does not consist in the power of acting or not acting, but in acting from choice. The choice is determined by something in the mind itself, or by something external influencing the mind; but, whatever is the cause, the choice makes the action free, and the agent accountable. If this definition of liberty be admitted, you will perceive that it is possible to reconcile the freedom of the will with absolute decrees; but we have not got rid of every difficulty. By this theory, human actions appear to be as necessary as the motions of matter according to the laws of gravitation and attraction; and man seems to be a machine, conscious of his movements, and consenting to them, but impelled by something different from himself.

“Upon such a subject, no man should be ashamed to acknowledge his ignorance. We are not required to reconcile the divine decrees and human liberty. It is enough to know that God has decreed all things which come to pass, and that men are answerable for their actions. Of both these truths we are assured by the Scriptures; and the latter is confirmed by the testimony of conscience. We feel that, although not independent of God, we are free; so that we excuse ourselves when we have done our duty, and accuse ourselves when we have neglected it. Sentiments of approbation and disapprobation in reference to our own conduct or that of other men would have no existence in our minds if we believed that men are necessary agents. But the tie which connects the divine decrees and human liberty is invisible. ‘Such knowledge is too wonderful for us; it is high, we cannot attain unto it’ (Psalm cxxxix.6.). If every thing in religion were level to the comprehension of reason, there would be no room for faith. It is better to believe humbly, than to reason presumptuously. And presumptuous all those reasonings may be called which lead to the denial of the immutability of the divine counsels, or of the freedom of the human will; which make man a machine, and God the author of sin.”[3]

Dallas, Texas

Christ—Sower and Lord of Harvest

The Gate of Death is the Gate of Life! The Gate of Death that Jesus Christ entered at Calvary opened the Gate of Life forevermore. He was the Eternal Seed of God Whom the Father sowed in this earth and by which He is to reap a glorious harvest of much fruit. The seed must die if a harvest is to spring from it. This is the law for all moral and spiritual transformations. The atonement of Jesus Christ was an indispensable necessity.

—Howard W. Ferrin in Unto All, p. 78.

Notes

1. Confess., XII.xv.
2. Decrees, Lecture I.
3. Lectures on Theology, p. 186.