By Lewis Sperry Chafer
[Author’s Note: This the second and last installment on the doctrine of The Divine Decree, will be followed in the next issue of BIBLIOTHECA SACRA by an article on The Names of God. Succeeding issues will present a series of articles on Trinitarianism—The Trinity, The Father, the Son, The Holy Spirit.]
1. The Decree of God
b. Predestination.
The term predestination signifies a predetermining of destiny. The body of truth which this term represents is properly a subdivision of the doctrine of Divine Decree. It does not relate to the destiny of material things; but in its broadest meaning it concerns the destiny of all intelligent creatures, including angels and men. For want of specific revelation, little is known concerning the destiny of angels. It is assumed that the holy angels will abide in that estate and they are seen in the eternal city (Heb 12:22–24). Those angels which kept not their first estate are destined to the lake of fire (Matt 25:41; cf. Rev 20:10), and there is no intimation that any redemption is ever offered to them. A far more determining revelation is found in the Bible as to the destiny of men. And as certainly as God foreordains “whatsoever cometh to pass,” the future of each human being is marked off in God’s eternal plan. Like the larger doctrine of Divine Decree, this particular aspect of predestination is fraught with perplexities, all of which, it may be believed, are due to the restrictions which encompass the human mind. Since divine predestination is taught in the Bible without dimunition, it is to be received and believed. Rationalistic attempts to modify this revelation, as might be expected, have resulted in greater complications.
Outside the predetermined destiny which belongs to Israel and the nations who “inherit the earth,” the doctrine of Predestination falls into two divisions, namely (1) Election and (2) Retribution. In its earlier and basic significance the term retribution had to do as much with the rewards which accrue to the saved as to the penalties which accrue to the unsaved. Election and Retribution are counterparts of each other. There can be no election of some that does not imply the rejection of others.
(1) Election
The election which is set forth in the Scriptures, apart from the elect nation Israel-not now under consideration-, is that favor of God, notably a full and free salvation which is accorded to some, but not to all. Of some it is said that they are “chosen in the Lord” (Rom 16:13); “chosen...to salvation” (2 Thess 2:13); “chosen in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4); predestined to the “adoption of children” (Eph 1:5); “to be conformed to the image of his son” (Rom 8:29) “elect according to the foreknowledge of God” (1 Pet 1:2) and “vessels of mercy which he hath afore prepared unto glory” (Rom 9:23). The term election should not be construed to mean only a general divine purpose to provide salvation for all men. It refers to an express divine purpose to confer salvation on some, but not all. Nor should the term imply that God will bless those who believe. It rather specifies those who will believe. Some, but not all, are written in the Lamb’s book of life. Evasion of the plain words of Scripture secures nothing in the understanding of this most solemn subject. Whatever may be the case of the nonelect, it is written of the saved that, He “hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim 1:9); “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love” (Eph 1:4).
There is no mere arbitrary caprice in divine election, for God in this, as in all He does, is governed by infinite wisdom, holiness, and love. As the ground of His election, He foresaw no difference in character of one over another. His choice is not based on anticipated worthiness. Election is an act of grace apart from works. Neither faith nor good works is the cause of divine election. They are rather the fruit of election. Men are not first holy and then chosen; but are first chosen and then holy. It was that they might be holy that they were chosen. The destiny of Isaac’s sons was determined before they had done anything good or bad that the fact of sovereign election might stand without complication (Rom 9:11–13). The fact that a supposed conditional election is the belief of the majority is due, doubtless, to the reluctance on the part of man to admit that no merit resides in his natural self.
To the same purpose, the election of God is immutable. Some have contended that it is in the power of the elect to disappoint the calculations of the Almighty. Such sentiments as these are written: “It is false to say that election is confirmed from everlasting.” “Men may make their election void.” They may “change themselves from believers to unbelievers,” from elect to nonelect. To such teachers, there is no word or work of God that is sure. Nevertheless, God hath said: “Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 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 46:9, 10).
The supralapsarians hold that God’s ultimate purpose in creation is the manifestation of His perfection and that His mercy will be revealed in the election of some and His justice will be revealed in the reprobation of all others. Thus far a solemn truth is declared; but they then advance to an inconsistency. To reach their desired end, they claim that God first decreed to create man and then to place him in circumstances wherein he would fall and to send His Son to die for those He chose for salvation. In this arrangement, God is seen to treat the fall of many only as a means to an end. Men were elected or rejected before the decree concerning the fall and without reference to the fall. Thus they were not seen as sinners, but as creatures, and as such they were chosen or rejected without a ground for their rejection or without an occasion for the exercise of grace. The effect of this doctrinal scheme is to rob God of all pity and love and to present Him as One who disregards the suffering of His creatures. Such doctrine may answer for the cold erring reason of man, but it wholly disregards the full testimony of the Word of God wherein the compassion of God is stressed.
The sublapsarians contend that, in the order of His elective decree, God first permitted the fall and then determined the destiny of men from that starting point as a meritless position before Him. This conception does at least provide a ground for the exercise of grace and a basis for the condemnation of the lost.
Closely related to the lapsarian controversy is the question as to whether some who are predestined unto life were so chosen in view of the fact that Christ would die for them, that is, for His sake, or did He die for them because they were the chosen of God? The latter would seem to be true, since God first loved the world and, because of that love, He gave His only begotten Son.
The doctrine of Election is a cardinal teaching of the Scriptures. Doubtless, it is attended with difficulties which are a burden upon all systems of theology alike. However, no word of God may be altered or neglected. No little help is gained when it is remembered that revelation and not reason is the guide to faith. When the former has spoken the latter is appointed to listen and acquiesce.
(2) Retribution.
There is that in the purpose of God which is styled retribution. As an act of God, the term means that some are rejected whom He does not elect. The word preterition has been preferred by some as being less severe. Surely, no thoughtful believer would choose to employ terms in relation to the doom of the lost which are unnecessarily strong. The theme is one of surpassing solemnity and it is no evidence of compassion when men purposely express themselves respecting the future estate of the unregenerate in harsh and unfeeling terms. It is a theme which should ever bring one to tears. It is intended by the choice of the word preterition to imply that God assumes no active attitude toward the nonelect other than to pass them by, leaving them under the just condemnation which their lost estate deserves. Thus it is supposed that, to some extent, God is relieved of responsibility if it is predicated of Him that He pretermits rather than reprobates the nonelect. Such distinctions are more a delusion of words than a discrimination of facts. Apart from this awful theme and under any circumstances more congenial, such a labored selection of words would hardly be suffered. It is impossible actively to choose some from a company and not, at the same time and by the same process, actively reject the remainder. Yet a real distinction exists between the divine way of dealing with one class as compared with the other. New and wholly undeserved blessings are extended to the elect, while the nonelect reap only the just recompense of their lost estate. God does for one class what He does not do for the other, but both aggregations pass before His mind and become objects of His determination. Exceedingly painful expressions are used in the Scriptures to describe the divine decision regarding the nonelect. They are “not written” in the book of life (Rev 13:8); they are “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” (Rom 9:22); they were “before ordained to condemnation” (Jude 4); “they stumbled at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed” (1 Pet 2:8). God is said to love some less than others (Mal 1:2, 3). Some are called the “election,” and some are called “the rest” (Rom 9:7). A dispassionate reading of Romans, chapters nine and eleven, will result in the assurance that, whatever men may believe or disbelieve regarding the matter, the Word of God is bold in declaring that some are appointed to blessing and others are to experience condemnation. Human limitations and perverse reasoning can hardly render true judgments on these issues. It is plain that the doom of the nonelect is not apart from a due consideration of their unworthiness. God is presented as an object of adoration and love, which He could not be were He revealed as One who merely exercised authority apart from goodness and justice. The real problem may be stated thus: Was God just in decreeing to reprobate transgressors of His holy will? In other words, is evil worthy of eternal separation from God? Upon this issue the human mind can throw no light. What the true nature of sin is as valued by God who is infinitely holy, must be accepted in the terms of revelation. Being against God, sin assumes the quality of infinity. Naturally, the inquiry arises, Could God not have elected to save all? To the same end, another inquiry arises, Would He not have been justified in reprobating all? To all such questions, though sincere, no reply is possible. God is proven to be worthy of unquestioning trust, and assurance is given that He is doing what is best. That conclusion will be embraced by all when the task is done. In the one company, He is demonstrating His grace; in the other, His justice may be seen. The nonelect are judged for their demerit, while the elect, who are in every respect as unworthy, are made the objects of His grace.
One danger which may result from attending upon these themes and which must be due to human misunderstanding, is that the heart may, for the time, lose sight of the revelation that God is of infinite compassion, not desiring that any should perish, and because of that truth no person, no matter how sinful, who desires to be saved, need fail of that eternal grace. The invitation is to all. Nothing is more agreeable to God than the exercise of His grace.
Reason symphonizes with revelation in asserting that every part of God’s creation will serve a purpose, and revelation adds that it will redound to His glory; even the wrath of man shall praise Him (Ps 76:10). Thus it is intimated that no evil shall go beyond the bounds of that which may in the end be to His glory. That the wicked may contribute to God’s final glory has been well stated in the Westminster Confession: “The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice” (Chap. iii, paragraph 7).
c. Objections to the doctrine of Divine Decree
Almost endless discussion has emerged over the doctrine of Divine Decree and its subdivision, Predestination. The major disagreement between Calvinistic and Arminian systems centers at this point. No phase of the subject has been neglected and it is impractical, were it possible, to undertake in this work a review or analysis of these extended arguments. The usual theological library is replete with such material.
Concerning objections in general it may be said: Even reason in its unfallen state is not qualified to sit in judgment on supernatural revelation. How much less is fallen reason able so to do! The Holy Spirit has spoken, and the sovereign determination of God is as clearly asserted in the pages of the Bible as are any of the prerogatives of men. After all, what does man know about God or the issues involved in reaching those ends which infinite wisdom has predetermined? It ill becomes the wisest of men to speculate even on what God ought, or ought not, to do. Much that is written on these subjects is distinguished for its shocking irreverence. Objections to the doctrine of Divine Decree are usually in two classes, namely (1) Those which involve the moral character of God, and (2) those which involve the moral agency of man. Of the latter, no word will be added here beyond what has gone before.
(1) The justice of God.
Predestination, it is objected, represents God as a respecter of persons. He would be a respecter of persons if among those that were all deserving He saved some and passed by the remainder; but not one of all the fallen human race has within himself the ground of any claim upon God. Those He saves are saved without the slightest respect to human merit. God acts in saving grace as a sovereign, and not as a judge. The Word of God which so insistently states the absolute authority and freedom of God, also declares by the mouth of the Apostle Peter, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34. cf. Lev 19:15). With immediate issues in view, men inquire as to why God caused any creature to exist whom He foreknew would be lost forever; but this question implies that God was free to create or not create, it also assumes that the welfare of each human being is the primary divine objective. Though such a supposition is the natural conclusion of a self-centered human being, it has little or no support from the Scriptures. The whole query penetrates far beyond the border of human understanding and can only tend to wrong thoughts concerning God.
(2) The love of God.
It is challenged that since God is revealed as loving all men, He could consistently reprobate none. In an attempt to meet this assertion some Limited Redemptionists have taken the ground that God loves only the elect; but such a conclusion is evidently reached quite apart from the teachings of the Bible. It is not only contrary to the teaching of the Bible, but it dishonors God and hinders all freedom in gospel preaching. There is a real difficulty involved in this challenge; yet it is easily possible that, while having genuine and universal affection for all His creatures and desires for their good—which is the testimony of the Scriptures—, yet for greater reasons unrevealed to men, He does not gratify all His desires. Intelligent men repress their desires and affections in the interests of greater ends. Such action is as possible in the range of divine reason as it is in the range of human reason.
(3) Predestination predetermines that men shall sin
Such a revolting inference might on the surface seem to some minds to have a foundation. Already it has been pointed out that neither the Bible nor the consciousness of men ever accuse God of promoting sin; nor do the Scriptures retreat from the assuring averment that God has preordained all things which come to pass. Such a seeming contradiction is harmonized in God, if not in the mind of man. No more clarifying illustration of this seeming contradiction is to be found than is involved in the death of Christ and God’s eternal purpose in that death. God had determined that His Lamb should be slain and predicted that He would be slain at the hands of wicked men. His prediction even anticipated the very words these men would utter at the time of Christ’s death (Ps 22:8). The manner of Christ’s death and the precise words of His executioners were not merely foreknown by a foresight which determines nothing. These wicked men did their deed and uttered their words under that necessity which predetermination imposes; but within the sphere of the consciousness of these men, they did precisely what they wanted to do without thought of necessity. They would have resented with vehemence any suggestion that they were fulfilling to the letter the most important decree of God. The strange harmony between predestination and human sin is asserted in 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.”
(4) Predestination and the means to its ends
This objection inquires, Will the elect be saved whether they give their salvation concern and conform themselves to the truth or not? In reply it is stated that predestination includes all the required means and anticipates every step in reaching its ends. If the elect must be called and justified in order to be prepared for the glory, God asserts that He will attend to their call and their justification. The call will include the response of saving faith, which in its experimental exercise will be to each individual as the unaided action of his own free will. Having thus decreed human free will as a necessary step in the fulfilling of all His eternal purpose, it becomes as essential in the sight of God as any other link in the chain.
(5) Predestination and gosepl preaching
The objector questions (a) the need of a proclamation of the gospel to those that are elect, (b) the uselessness of it to the nonelect, and (c) can there be sincerity in the preaching of the gospel to the nonelect? The first issue has been answered in the preceding paragraph. Regarding the second issue, it may be stated that no man knows who are elect or who are not, therefore the divine instruction to the preacher is that he go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Concerning the question of divine sincerity in offering the gospel to those who are nonelect, it may be observed that one of the sins of the unsaved for which a just penalty rests upon them is the sin of rejection of Christ, or of unbelief. It is evident no rejection can be predicated to those who have not had the gospel presented unto them, and therefore have not actually refused it (Rom 2:12).
(6) Predestination and fatalism
The term fatalism may mean that all things are so predetermined by God that no human choice is possible or “that all events, including human choices, are absolutely determined in a mechanical way by their antecedent physical causes—physical determinism.” This conception is gained whenever the sovereignty of God is stressed to the exclusion of the free-action of men, or when God is left out of the reckoning and men imagine they are driven by blind forces over which they have no control. The most important choice the human heart can ever make is that of the acceptance of Christ as Savior, and the will of man alone is appealed to in this decision. If man is free in the realm of things most vital and eternal, it is to be supposed that He is equally free in matters of lesser import.
(7) Divine decree and human suffering
This, the last of the objections to divine sovereignty to be examined, calls the wisdom and goodness of God in question in view of the suffering and death which is in the world. A theodicy is indicated, that is, a defence of the worthiness of God in the face of all the distress and agony that is in the world. Much that has gone before in this discussion has been to the one end that God may be vindicated against the conclusions of human misunderstanding. The contents of any theodicy will naturally be determined by the number of problems presented for consideration. Only the problem of human suffering remains in this inventory. This issue has been before the race since the days of Job. Men have been perplexed, not only by the presence of human suffering in the world where God who is infinite goodness reigns, but by the fact that often the wicked prosper while the godly languish in suffering and loss. As recorded in Psalm 73, the writer of the Psalm testifies that he was “plagued and chastened” every morning as he beheld the prosperity of the wicked. It was not until he went into the sanctuary that he understood their end. God has revealed Himself to His own in the world. They are able to rise above the present distress because of the surpassing assurance with which their knowledge of God enriches them.
Suffering may be as a discipline for the saint or as a penalty upon the sinner (1 Pet 3:17). In either case there is but one Hand that bestows—He who never errs or fails—He who can be and should be trusted implicitly—He who out of this midnight of evil will yet bring forth His own righteousness as the noon-day. Suffering is a means which God employs to the realization of His most perfect will. He is never wrong; He is never mistaken. “Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: but rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings: that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf” (1 Pet 4:12–16). Even Christ with all His perfection was not spared suffering. It is written: “Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin” (1 Pet 4:1).
Writing on the general theme of objections to the doctrine of Divine Decree and with a word of timely warning, Dr. John Dick states: “It can serve no great purpose to muster up objections against the infallibility of the Divine decrees, or the responsibility of man; to listen to them when proposed by others; to revolve them in our minds; to perplex ourselves with attempts to answer them, and to allow ourselves to be disquieted and to doubt because our endeavours are not successful. Although we should prove to our satisfaction, as many have done to theirs, that the decrees of God are not absolute, or that man is not free, all that we have gained is, to confirm our minds in the belief of a falsehood; for both doctrines must be true, as they are expressly declared in the Scriptures. To their authority let us bow; and by their decision let us regulate our thoughts and our conduct. If we still oppose our reasonings to their dictates, we must take our course; but let us beware lest we dispute ourselves into infidelity or atheism, and seek a refuge from our doubts in the rejection of revelation, because it inculcates truths which to us appear contradictory, or in the cheerless conclusion, that we live in a fatherless world, where chance bears sway, that man is the phantom of an hour, the sport of accident and passion, and that, as he knows not whence he came, so he cannot tell whither he is going. In opposition to this comfortless and impious conclusion, let us hold fast the creed which is consonant to reason as well as to revelation, that the Supreme Being manages the affairs of the universe which he created; that all creatures are dependent upon him, and all events are subject to his control: that while good men obey him from choice, the wrath and wayward passions of the bad are subservient to his design; that, while his almighty power bends them to his purpose, he is a moral Governor and Judge, whose righteousness will be displayed in punishing transgressors, even for those actions which were the means of executing his own decrees.[1]
d. Major manifestations of the Divine Decree
Various major manifestations of divine decree should be noted specifically:
(1) Creation
The Biblical account of creation declares that of His own free will and not of necessity, and by an act rather than by a process, God created from nothing all things that exist. A distinction is indicated between the revelation that a sufficient cause, in the Person of the Eternal God, created all things from nothing, and the atheistic notion that matter is either eternal or self-evolved. The phrase Creatio prima seu immediata denotes that form of creation which brought all necessary elements into existence. The phrase Creatio secundo seu mediata denotes a subsequent act of God by which He brought order and form out of the chaos which followed the original creation. This is the order of events as set forth in the opening verses of the Bible. Three general attitudes toward the Biblical account of creation are abroad, namely, (a) that it is only allegorical, (b) that it is the basis for a spiritualizing process of teaching, and (c) that it is historical. The last named attitude is the only one which conforms to the narrative as given in Genesis and to the upwards of fifty subsequent statements in all the Sacred Text (cf. Ps 33:6; 148:5). Throughout the Bible, God is honored as the Sovereign Creator, and all things created are absolutely dependent upon Him (cf. Neh 9:6; Acts 17:28; Rom 9:36; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Rev 4:11). The Bible also asserts that God existed before the things which He created (cf. Ps 90:2; John 17:5, 24). The Bible as clearly assigns the work of creation to each of the three Persons of the Godhead separately-to the Father, 1 Cor 8:6; to the Son (John 1:3; Col 1:16, 17; Heb 1:10–12); to the Spirit (Gen 1:2; Job 26:13, 34:4; Ps 33:6; 104:29, 30; Isa 40:13); and to God-Elohim, the plural name (Gen 1:1, 26).
It remains to be observed that since God alone was in existence before the creation of the universe, He must have created all things for His own pleasure, and that He who is worthy might be glorified.
(2) The program of the ages
The unrestrained, sovereign purpose of God is seen in the ordering of the succession of the ages. That God has a program of the ages is disclosed in many passages (cf. Deut 30:1–10; Dan 2:31–45; 7:1–28; 9:24–27; Hosea 3:4, 5; Matt 23:37 to 25:46; Acts 15:13–18; Rom 11:13–29; 2 Thess 2:1–12; Rev 2:1 to 22:21). Likewise, there are well-defined periods of time related to the divine purpose. The Apostle Paul writes of the period between Adam and Moses (Rom 5:14); John speaks of the law as given by Moses, but of grace and truth as coming by Christ (John 1:17). Christ also speaks of the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24) which are evidently to be distinguished from Jewish “times and seasons” (Acts 1:7; 1 Thess 5:1). Likewise, Christ spoke of a hitherto unannounced period between His two advents and indicates its distinctive features (Matt 13:1–51), and predicted a yet future time of “great tribulation” and defines its character (Matt 24:9–31). There are “last days” for Israel (Isa 2:1–5) as well as “last days” for the Church (2 Tim 3:1–5). The Apostle John anticipates a period of one thousand years and relates this to the reign of Christ at which time the Church, His bride, will reign with Him (Rev 20:1–6). That Christ will sit on the throne of David and reign over the house of Jacob forever is declared by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:31–33), and that there will be an ever-abiding New Heaven and New Earth is as clearly revealed (Isa 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1). In Hebrews 1:1, 2 a sharp contrast is drawn between “times past” when God spoke to the fathers by the prophets and “these last days” when He is speaking unto us by His Son. Similarly, it is clearly disclosed that there are ages past (Eph 3:5; Col 1:26), the present age (Rom 12:2; Gal 1:4) and the age, or ages to come (Eph 2:7; Heb 6:5). Note Eph 1:10 where the future age is termed the dispensation—οἰκονομία—of the fullness—πλν́ρωμα—of times—καιρός.
The use of αἰῶνας in Hebrews 1:2 and 11:3 with its almost universal reference to time, either bounded or unbounded, is of particular significance as bearing on the divine arrangements of time-periods. The former with ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας and the latter with κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας have been much disputed. Dean Alford states: “The main classes of interpreters are two. (1) Those who see in the word its ordinary meaning of ‘ages of time’; (2) those who do not recognize such meanings but suppose it to have been merged in that of ‘the world,’ or ‘the worlds.’ To (1) belong the Greek Fathers; and some others. On the other hand, (2) is the view of the majority of the commentators” (N.T. for English Readers, Vol. II, Part II, p. 599). In several passages, including the two in question, Vincent declares αἰῶνας to refer to “the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world.” The word, he states, “means a period of time. Otherwise, it would be impossible to account for the plural, or such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come” (Word Studies, Vol. IV, p. 59).
Considering the accepted meaning of αἰῶνας, the natural interpretation of the passage in question is that God did by Christ arrange the successive periods, far beyond καιρός within χρόνος, extending, indeed to things eternal, or from everlasting to everlasting. This interpretation held, according to Alford, by the Greek Fathers, though not free from difficulties, is of more than passing import to those who do discern the fact, force, and fruition of God’s time-periods.
(3) Preservation
This form of divine activity is but the continuous working of God by which He maintains and consummates the objects of His creation. The doctrine of Preservation answers the claim of Deistic philosophy, and asserts that the sovereign Decree of God will be perfected forever (cf. Neh 9:6; Ps 36:6; Col 1:17; Heb 1:2, 3).
(4) Providence
Again, God is revealed in Providence as the sovereign One who, that His eternal purposes may be revealed, molds all events both moral and physical. While Preservation continues the existence of things, Providence directs their progress. It extends to all the works of God. Dr. A. A. Hodge thus explains Biblical Providence:
“God having from eternity absolutely decreed whatsoever comes to pass, and having in the beginning created all things out of nothing by word of his power, and continuing subsequently constantly present to every atom of his creation, upholding all things in being and in the possession and exercise of all their properties, he ALSO continually controls and directs the actions of all his creatures thus preserved, so that while he never violates the law of their several natures, he yet infallibly causes all actions and events singular and universal to occur according to the eternal and immutable plan embraced in his decree. There is a design in providence. God has chosen his great end, the manifestation of his own glory, but in order to that end he has chosen innumerable subordinate ends; these are fixed; and he has appointed all actions and events in their several relations as means to those ends; and he continually so directs the actions of all creatures that all these general and special ends are brought to pass precisely at the time, by the means, and in the mode and under the conditions, which he from eternity proposed.”[2]
The doctrine of Providence may be extended to embrace nearly all that enters into both Naturalistic and Biblical Theism. It falls naturally into a four-fold division: (a) Preventative (cf. Gen 20:6; Ps 19:13): God uses parents, governments, laws, customs, public opinion, His Word, His Spirit, and conscience as means to a providential impediment to evil. The Spirit, the Word, and prayer avail much for the Christian. (b) Permissive, which embraces that which God does not restrain (cf. Deut 8:2; 2 Chron 32:31; Hosea 4:17; Rom 1:24, 28). (c) Directive, by which action God guides the ways of men and often outside their consciousness of that guidance (cf. Gen 50:20; Ps 76:10; Isa 10:5; John 13:27; Acts 4:28). (d) Determinative, by which action of God He decides and executes all things after the counsel of His own will.
The providence of God so combines with human freedom that, though the ways of God are sure, it is in no sense fatalism. Likewise, the providence of God is the opposite of chance. The divine care reaches to the least detail of life as well as to its greater aspects. Certain attributes of God demand the exercise of His providence. His justice prompts Him to secure all moral good; His benevolence prompts Him to care for His own; His immutability insures that what He has begun He will complete; and His power is sufficient to execute all His desire.
(5) Prayer
Though God conditions certain actions of His own on prayer, it does not follow that those things thus conditioned are uncertain. This, again, is the problem of the divine and human wills being combined in such a way as to realize the precise divine purpose through the free-choice of men. Efficacious prayer is to the glory of the Father (John 14:13), in the name of the Son (John 14:14), and in the enabling power of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:26, 27). Compliance with these conditions insures that the human will is in agreement with the divine will. Transforming things, mighty indeed, are wrought by prayer, but only such things as comport with the will and purpose of God. Why, then, should prayer be offered? Only because of the fact that the divine purpose, which the answer to prayer represents, includes the prayer feature. It is as much decreed that it shall be done in answer to prayer as it is decreed that it shall be done at all. “We must add to this that true prayer is not merely human, but sustained and carried on by the Divine Spirit as the Spirit of prayer, and that it has to such an extent a prophetic character, in which the Providence of God is one with the presentiment of man. Hence the sealing of prayer by the Amen. ...Prayer comes forth from the eternal freedom of the child, and goes back to the eternal freedom of the Father” (Lange).
(6) Miracles
That in the physical world which surpasses all known human or moral powers and is therefore ascribed to supernatural agencies is called miracle. It is a sufficient power acting outside the range of natural causes and effects. But miracles do not imply that God has introduced something unforeseen in His eternal purpose, for the miracle, like all else, is included in His eternal plan. Miracles are such only as viewed by men; to God they are but extraordinary events in the providence of God. Though miracles are wonders (Acts 2:10) in the eyes of men and display the power of God, their true purpose is that of a “sign” (Matt 12:38; John 2:18). They certify and authenticate a teacher or his doctrine. For this reason false doctrine has always resorted to supposed supernatural occurrences to establish its claims. Satan is accredited with miraculous power (2 Thess 2:9; Rev 13:13–15). Since the Word of God has been written in its perfection and preserved, there is no further need of signs. The present need is the guidance of the Spirit into all truth, which ministry is provided for all who will yield themselves to Him.
(7) Grace
Though many objectives are disclosed, the supreme purpose of God in creation seems to be the demonstration of His grace. The manifestation of divine grace as it is in Christ (Titus 2:11) and as it will be displayed by the redeemed in glory (Eph 2:7), is not only within the divine decree, but is a major feature of that decree.
Conclusion
As intimated at the beginning of this discussion on the doctrine of Divine Decree, the secret things of God cannot be solved by any finite mind. As much has been attempted as becomes any man, namely, some unnecessary misunderstandings have been examined, and if the problems have been relieved to that extent, the work is not in vain.
In concluding the translation of about sixty-five pages on the Decree of God and Predestination by Herman Venema in his Institutes of Theology, the translator—Rev Alex. W. Brown—, writes a comment which may well serve as a concluding observation to what has here been written on this so difficult division of Theology:
“After the lengthy and ingenious discussion by the author on the subject of predestination, we confess we feel ourselves just where we were. In attempting to reconcile the doctrine of election with the universality of the Gospel offer and with the expressed unwillingness of God that men should perish; he has only shifted the difficulty, he has not removed it. The fact is they are hopelessly irreconcilable in our present state, and those who have made the attempt had much better have let it alone. It is a truth revealed in Scripture that all who are or who shall be saved are and shall be so in consequence of the eternal purpose of God, in other words, that all believers are elected persons, chosen in Christ before the world began, and that none will believe in Christ and be made partakers of his salvation except those who are the subjects of this divine purpose or decree. It is also revealed in Scripture that there is a divine purpose in regard to those who are not elected or chosen. It is impossible, we think, to admit the one without admitting the other. Election is an act of mind on the part of God in regard to some reprobation or preterition or whatever other name may be employed is also an act of mind on the part of God in regard to others-he refused to choose them. Do we read for instance that the names of some were written in the book of life? we read also that the names of others were not so written. Do we find some spoken of as vessels of mercy prepared afore unto glory? we find others spoken of as vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. Is it said that some were chosen in Christ before the world began? it is also said that others were of old ordained to condemnation, who stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed. Now we must take God’s word as we find it and receive its statements as true with whatever difficulties the reception of them may be attended. We may not be able to see how the existence of these decrees can consist with human liberty and responsibility or with the justice and goodness of God. But the fact is we have nothing whatever to do with the reconciling of these apparently contrary things. That is God’s province, not ours. If we find both clearly revealed, we are bound to receive both. Our reason must be silent before this and every other mystery contained in his word. It must be treated just as Zacharias was treated by the angel. When the priest to whom he communicated the glad news of the birth of a son, asked ‘whereby shall I know this?’ the angel stops his mouth, ‘Behold,’ says he, ‘thou shalt be dumb.’ Just as Hagar, while obedient to Sarah, was entertained as a servant, but when she usurped and contradicted and would not submit was expelled from the household of Abraham, so reason as long as it is subject to revelation is to be kindly entertained as a useful handmaid, but the moment it begins to oppose faith is to be abandoned and cast out as giving law to one who is invested with an authority to which it should meekly and willingly submit. The duty devolving upon those who preach and hear the Gospel in regard to this difficulty is plain. The doctrines of election and reprobation are to be believed because God has revealed them. But in delivering the message of mercy the preacher has nothing whatever to do with them—he must proclaim that message as if there were no such things in existence, and no more allow them to interfere with his presenting to all the offer of a free and full salvation in Christ than the physician would in discharging the duties of his profession. There is predestination in the latter case as well as in the forme—a predestination that embraces both the end and the means. Some are appointed to die, others to recover. But he deals with all, as if his skill in every case were to be followed with success. The same holds true in regard to those who hear the Gospel. The fact that God has chosen some to eternal life and passed by the rest should not be allowed to interfere with the duty that devolves upon them to seek to be saved, any more than the fact of God’s decrees extending to all the ordinary occupations of life should interfere in any degree with the attention they should give to these. Their rule of duty in both cases is not what God has purposed but what God has said. All events are foreordained—those which relate to their temporal as well as those which relate to their spiritual condition. But just as, without taking into consideration the fact that the day and hour of their death are fixed before which they will not leave the world, and beyond which all their efforts cannot carry them, they nevertheless labour as strenuously as if the preservation of their life depended solely upon their own exertion; in the same way, without seeking to pry into the mysteries of God’s government in spiritual matters, they should render submission to the statement ‘he that believeth shall be saved,’ and labour as diligently in the use of means that salvation in this way may be theirs as if success depended wholly upon themselves. Let them give all diligence to prove their calling by closing with the offer of mercy held out to them and by striving to do the will of their heavenly Father, and then they may rest assured of their election.”[3]
Dallas, Texas
Notes
- Lectures on Theology, p. 195.
- Outlines of Theology, p. 262.
- Translation of Hermann Venema’s Institutes of Theology, pp. 334,335.
No comments:
Post a Comment