Customarily, LifeWay – the publication agency of the Southern Baptist Convention – produces decent content in its materials produced for Bible study in Sunday school classes. But in a recent study one can find an example of what happens when the human-free-will/God’s-sovereignty tension tilts to heavily toward the side of human free will (Explore the Bible, March 22, “Follow the Lord’s Will,” Dr. Jere Phillips).
The lessons opens with a dialogue between “Mavis” and “John” about a drunk driver who crashed and killed two people. John concludes “I guess it was God’s will and their time to go.” Phillips suggests at this point that John’s assessment is not correct. Here is Phillips’ response to John and his introduction to the remainder of the lesson (which focuses on Isaiah 24:1 – 35:10):
Too often adults use the expression “God’s will” to suggest everything
that happens is exactly what God desired to happen. Such a view reduces
God’s will to fate. It overlooks God’s gift to humans of a free will as
well as the consequences of human choices. Because God gave humans the
responsibility to choose their actions, we can say that all consequences of bad
choices are God’s will only in the sense that He permitted them. That is
not the same, however, as saying God desired the bad choices or caused
them.
According to His Word, God wants the best for us. Therefore His
will is for us to recognize Him as Lord and to follow His guidance in our
everyday living.
This is a mass of confusion, to say the least.
Using Phillips’ own example of the drunk driver, it is difficult to determine – using Phillips’ “free will” paradigm – whose bad choices are responsible for the deaths of two pedestrians. Certainly the drunk driver’s choice is in issue, but what about the choices of the pedestrians? What “bad choices” did they make that resulted in their deaths? To be standing in that particular spot? To shop at that store? To leave at that time? To leave the house that morning? The answer is that NONE of them is “bad”. They did not abuse their “free will.” But in a “free will” universe, the victims of such an accident are left searching through an endless array of choices for the one that accounts for the “consequence” of their being mowed down by a drunk driver. They are forced to flounder about, desperately seeking to understand how they failed to recognize God as Lord, how they failed to follow his guidance and avoid death by automobile.
Rather than “God’s will” being reduced to “fate,” this idea that God is not involved in directing human choice and “free will,” and that everything that happens is a result of the ineluctable cause-and-effect chain of consequences springing from “choice,” is actually fatalism, and the worst form of it. For it removes the personal God – who has a plan for his creation, a plan for his people, even a plan for the wicked – and leaves only blind forces of cause and effect to explain what happens in the world.
Further, it is astounding that such a view of man’s “free will” is proposed in a study of the book of Isaiah, which contains some of the most unapologetic explanations in all of Scripture of God’s absolute sovereignty over creation, over men, and over our choices. The idea that “all consequences of bad choices are God’s will only in the sense that He permitted them” ignores the plain teaching of Scripture. It ignores the example of Joseph, who said that his brothers meant to sell him for evil, but that “God meant it for good.” It ignores God’s own teaching about Pharaoh, whom God both hardened and then punished for being hardened. It ignores the teaching that the men who crucified Jesus did it according to the “predetermined plan of God” but were also culpable for their sin.
In Phillips’ “free will” narrative, man becomes sovereign over his life. “According to His Word, God wants the best for us,” and this “best” can be thwarted, stymied and derailed by our poor choices. God did not want those pedestrians to die, but their poor choices trumped God’s desire. But Phillips’ very suggestion is both woefully insufficient comfort and contradictory: to avoid bad consequences (being run over by a truck), we should “recognize Him as Lord” – that is, if we allow God to be sovereign over our “everyday living,” all will be well.
It is much more emotionally and philosophically satisfying – not to mention truer to Scripture – to know that God is engaged, somehow, in everything I “choose” to do and that others “choose” to do to me. It is much more wonderful to know that God “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11) and works all things together for good (Rom. 8:28), even those things that cause me temporary suffering that I can neither control nor explain. It is much more comforting to know that I AM NOT THE LORD OF MY DESTINY, but that the God who made me, who called me, who sustains me, and who adopted me in Christ, IS.
Human responsibility for actions is true. But it is not Lord.
13 comments:
It is clear from Mr. Faircloth's comment that he is one of those who has bought into the new Reformed movement that is gaining ground in some evangelical circles. The Reformed movement is nothing more than strict Calvinism ratcheted up several notches. Because I am aware of this trend, I was pleasantly surprised at the lesson writer's approach. Unlike Mr. Faircloth I (an adult Sunday School teacher in a Soutnern Baptist church) completely agree with the lesson writer's comments. I won't take the space here to elaborate but it is clear that the Bible does indeed teach that we have free will, and that the extreme view of the Reformed movement/Calvinism will weaken our message and evangelistic efforts. I hope Mr. Faircloth's position is a minority one within evangelicalism.
Jerry, thanks for the comment...I appreciate the interaction.
Rather than "buying in" to the "new Reformed movement", I have held to the doctrines of grace from the time I seriously began to consider the teaching of Scripture on the sovereignty of God and the responsbility of man, some 23 years ago.
I wonder how you consider yourself "unlike" me: as a teacher, or as taking a different view. In the event it is the former, I, too, have taught for many years in college and adult Bible studies in Southern Baptist churches and in para-church contexts, as well as preaching (although I don't recall any sermon in which I even mentioned God's sovereignty in salvation).
I did not deny that Scripture teaches "free will," though like many who address the matter, I believe the term to be dreadfully loaded, and prefer "human responsibility." I also stated that the sovereignty/responsibility teaching of Scripture must be held in strict tension, so that neither is neglected, but that unfortunately the predomoninant tendency is to place more emphasis on the "free will" end of the tension, which is not, after all, surprising, given the tendency of our sin nature to "think more highly of ourselves than we ought".
It is a frequent refrain that a strong view of God's sovereignty will "weaken our message and evangelistic efforts." Yet regarding this lesson, my critique had to do with the application of "free will" to a car accident. Further, I have yet to hear any evidence that belief in God's sovereignty weakens the gospel or evangelism. On the contrary, I can think of nothing more weakening to the message of God's grace than to make men believe that everything that happens in their lives, including whether or not they are struck by a car or are saved, is completely up to them, and them alone. It should make us all cringe to hear missionaries say that unless we give to missions offerings some people won't be saved, or to hear deacons advocate for a new gym because without it some people won't be saved, or to hear RA instructors tell boys that they must become missionaries because if they don't some men won't be saved.
As a fellow teacher of the word, I would be interested to know what Scripture you believe supports the lesson author's contention that God is in no way sovereign over car accidents. And it is disappointing that instead of addressing my complaints about the lesson, you chose instead to dismiss them as a product of the "new Reformed movement" and/or "strict Calvinism." The source of much misunderstanding between various doctrinal perspectives is the tendency to put labels on each other as a means to end the discussion, rather than engaging in honest dialogue as a means of understanding.
Rob,
I appreciate your thoughtful response. I hope that my response did not come across as "shooting from the hip". I am sorry that I was not more clear in my comment about "unlike me". I wasn't referring to my teaching; I was referring to a different view on God's actions in our lives. I do feel very strongly about the issues raised in your original comments.I bemoan the growth of Reformed Theology in recent years. My response here will be limited to only a few thoughts. I can only speak of my own views here, of course, and not all those who reject Reformed Theology (included in that group is the President of Southwestern Baptist Seminary; see page 13 of the current issue of Christianity Today). (1)A rejection of Reform Theology is not a rejection of God's sovereignty. Proper recognition of God's sovereignty does not necessitate a belief that God orchestrates all things that happen to us in our life as if we were puppets. God in his sovereignty has chosen to allow humanity free will, a free will to choose in every decision that comes our way each day. (2) Reformed Theology/Calvinism carried to its logical extreme leaves no place for the cross--unless you accept Reformed's point of "limited atonement" which I see as completely counter to biblical teaching. That is what weakens our message and our evangelism efforts.
(3)To reject Reformed Theology is not to say that God doesn't act in our life. No Christian can believe that, of course. But it is rejection that everything is orchestrated by God. I do not know what you believe in this area, but I have read Reformed material that contends that God brings everything that happens to us--all bad things, even our sin. I could go on, but time and space limits me here. Thank you for your thoughts. I wish you the best in your teaching. God bless.
Jerry
Jerry,
I'm still looking for that biblical evidence which supports Mr Philips' car wreck example. ;-)
To say one "rejects Reformed theology" is fine, much like saying "I'm Calvinist, you're Arminian," but doesn't serve much purpose when discussing particular issues. I bemoan the practice of most who say they "reject Reformed theology" and merely announce that bare fact, without addressing the biblical evidence for Reformed positions, or expressing the evidence for Arminian ones.
Nothing in what I have expressed in this post, or anywhere on this blog, presents a view of God's sovereignty that treats men "as if we were puppets." Frankly,this is a red herring thrown out by "free will" proponents to mischaracterize the Reformed view of sovereignty without needing to address the merits of the position. The presumption of the Arminian view is that there are only two options available to us: either man's "will" is "free" -- meaning that our choices are not constrained by anything, such as our sin nature and even God's will -- OR that men are "puppets." The biblical teaching is much more complex than that.
I reject out of hand your contention that Reformed theology "leaves no room for the cross." As I said in the post, "human responsibility for actions is true," and this culpability creates the dilemma of how a holy God can be reconciled to sinful men. This dilemma is not resolved any other way than through the work of reconciliation initiated by God and accomplished by Jesus Christ on the cross.
The Reformed position is that Jesus Christ actually came to accomplish the redemption of his people ("he will save his people from their sins") and that he did, in fact, accomplish that goal. The Arminian position is that the cross only made salvation "possible" for those men who properly exercise "free will" and accept redemption. Interestingly, the Arminian position also maintains that the atonement is "unlimited," and taken to its logical conclusion, results in universal salvation for all men, because if Christ's atonement covers all sin -- if Christ bore the penalty for all sin -- then there is nothing left to be punished.
At this point, I must ask one question: why do we pray for the salvation of the lost? If God is not sovereign, our prayer is useless. If man's "free will" is supreme, then our prayer violates his "free agency" and invites God to do the same.
As someone has remarked, on our feet we may disagree, but on our knees we are all Calvinist.
Regardless of Reformed verses Arminian views the main point in Rob's post was about a Sunday School lesson, not about Reformed Theology. I (as a lowly Sunday School member and not a teacher) was bothered by the opening paragraphs of the lesson. It implied that the woman and child died as a result of the "consequences of bad choices". That is baffling and extremely unloving to me. To live life believing that God is some detached create-them-and-leave-them-alone kind of being is unimaginable to me. The idea that God is sitting around in heaven wringing his hands hoping that someone will accept Him is unthinkable to me. The idea of Christ dying for just the possibility of someone accepting Him, that He could possibly have died for NOTHING is horrifying to me.
I believe in evangelism because as a Christian I am commanded to evangelize! I know that I am no better than the worst sinner because I AM the worst sinner! I didn't save myself and I can't save anyone else but I can be a witness for Him and pray that He will use me to draw His people to Himself!
If you take Arminianism to its logical conclusions then every one who believes is just smarter than everyone who doesn't, and once you've witnessed to someone, if they don't accept Christ, then you just give up on them as a bad seed who is too dumb and too bad a sinner to see what you see.
Carrie's comment about the accident underlines the heart of much of our disagreement, I think. God is neither detached nor a orchestrater of every event. Where would be the meaning of a universe in which the creator created beings to accept Him and love Him, yet they weren't given the full dynamics of choosing that? God chose in his sovereignty to create a universe that runs on free will to give full meaning and value to our choice of or our rejection of the cross. Carrie's comment that she finds "horrifying" the thought that Christ died on the cross "just for the possibility of someone accepting Him" is exactly part of the equation; that is exactly part of the tragedy of the lost. That is exactly what God did. As Rob said, Christ died to save "His people". But "His people" are only "His people" once they accept the cross, once they, through their free will, freely accept who Jesus is and what he did for us--for all of us who accept. His people are not his people before they individually and freely become his people. As far as scripture is concerned: in support of God LOOKING (not already decided)for those who seek Him--John 4:23, Psalm 14:2, Psalm 53:2, Hebrews 11:6. In support of the belief that salvation is offered to ALL men--1 Tim. 4:10, 1 Tim. 2:3,4, 1 Tim.2:4, 2 Corth. 5:15, 2 Peter 3:9, John 1:12, Romans 8:22. In support of salvation offered to all who believe--1 John 2:23, John 11:25, John 3:16, Mark 16;16. In support of the view that salvation is OFFERED to every person--1 John 5:1, Acts 2:21, Hebrews 2:9, Joel 2:32, John 3:14,15, Romans 1:16, Romans 10:13. Verses that show that people have the ability to choose salvation or to reject it; it was not chosen beforehand--1 Chron. 28:9, Ezekiel 18:31, Ezekiel:19, John 8:24 (not because you were not chosen, but because you choose not to believe), Luke 12:9, Mark 8:16. Rob, I would turn your question about prayer on it's head. If every single thing (and I realize that some Reformist probably don't have that extreme view. I'm not clear about your stance here)is directed by God, then why pray? If the outcome is already decided, if tomorrow's events are already in the books, if we have no choice or free will, then would it not be pointless to pray? On the other hand, those of us who reject R.T. believe that while God does not cause each and every event in our lives, He can and does enter our life whenever he chooses (His sovereignty!). Prayers are prayed with that truth in mind.
Jerry,
Again, I have never said that "we have no choice or free will" -- only that our choosing is subject to both our sin nature and to God's will, and hence is not completely "free" in the sense that most use the term.
I could also provide verses that speak of God's choosing men, of God hardening hearts, of Jesus speaking in parables so the lost won't understand, of men being unable to come to Christ unless God grants it, of men being unable to repent unless God grants it, of Jesus dying for many or some, of belief being the result of appointment to eternal life, of election to salvation and choosing to salvation before the world was formed, of Jesus choosing disciples, of God turning the king's heart where he wills, of God directing the lot in the lap, and examples when "all" does not mean "all"...which, together with your verses, would serve to prove the point I made in the original post: Scripture teaches BOTH that God is sovereign and man is responsible.
We evangelize because it is the means God uses to change men's hearts and bring to to himself. We pray for the salvation of others because we know that God is able to turn hearts of stone to hearts of flesh, to bring dead hearts to life, and that his work -- and only his work -- is what enables the restored heart to "choose" him.
I am curious about your statement that God created a "universe that runs on free will to give full meaning and value to our choice of or our rejection of the cross." This, I think, demonstrates the crux of the issue that the Reformed have with the Arminian: it is WE deciding what is necessary for salvation and damnation to have "full meaning and value." That is, if we are not "free" in whatever fashion we deem appropriate -- regardless of the effect of our sin nature on our "choice" and how Scipture characterizes our ability -- then reward and punishment, salvation and damnation, grace and law, have less "meaning."
But it is God who has established "meaning": of human responsibility, of his sovereignty, of sin, of punishment, of wrath, of redemption, of mercy, and all in the pages of Scripture. When we apply extra-biblical "meaning" criteria to what God has revealed to us is when we are treading in dangerous territory.
To apply this to the car wreck example (I invite your take on it -- ;-)), the Arminian would say that two innocents being mowed down by a drunk driver has the most significance when their death is the result of "free will." The Reformed would say that the incident has the most significance when it is the result of God's working all things after the counsel of his will, and working all things together for good, ultimately for his glory.
A little boy gets cancer and passes away....this is because of his bad choices??? A preacher, while preaching to his congregation, is shot and killed....what bad choice did he make???
Yes we have the freedom to make choices. We can choose to eat a bowl of cereal. We can choose to go somewhere we know we shouldn't go but we can't choose when we will die. We didn't choose when we would be born. We can't choose when we will be saved. Do I understand all of it? No. Do I understand the Trinity? No. But I believe it because that's what scripture teaches.
Ps. 103:19, Dan. 4:35, Eph. 1:11, 1 Sam. 16:1, Psalm 139:16, Isa 45:5, Prov. 16:33, Matt. 10:30
"...humans mean what they do for evil-yet God who overrules uses their actions for good (Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23).Again: humans, under God's overruling, sin-yet God is not the author of sin (James 1:13-17); rather, he is its judge." J.I. Packer, Concise Theology
I don't have much time right now, but I will make a couple of quick comments for now and will return later. Concerning the car wreck, the little boy with cancer, the preacher who was shot: we live in a fallen world. Creation is not as God originally intended. Adam sinned and thus the Fall. Because of that we now have sickness, accidents, acts of evil, etc. That is how such events as you mentioned are to be understood. Those kind of things are not what God desires, but because of the fallen state of the universe they happen. Yes, God could correct things, but He put free will into the mix for Adam to be able to choose. His choice resulted in how things now are. Things have to be played out. The equation will not be changed. We suffer the consequences (sickness, evil, etc.). But the good side of that is that free will continues to exist for us to accept the awesome greatness and wonder of what Christ accomplished on the cross. One more quick point for now--no, us choosing the cross is not US deciding what is necessary for salvation. It is following through with the choice GOD HAS DECIDED, what He set in place. That is what he predistined--salvation for those who freely choose the the truth of the cross. Have a good rest of the day.
"Concerning the car wreck, the little boy with cancer, the preacher who was shot: we live in a fallen world. Creation is not as God originally intended. Adam sinned and thus the Fall. Because of that we now have sickness, accidents, acts of evil, etc. That is how such events as you mentioned are to be understood. Those kind of things are not what God desires, but because of the fallen state of the universe they happen"
I agree and I understand all of that.
My point is, and has been, that I disagree with the lesson when the writer states, "Because God gave humans the responsibility to choose their actions, we can say that all consequences of bad choices are God's will only in the sense that he permitted them." Saying that, in relation to the car accident taking the lives of the woman and child, is, in my opinion, wrong.
"Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was nono of them."
Psalm 139:16
To quote Rob, "Human responsibility for actions is true. But it is not Lord!"
Now I will take my exit from this debate
Jerry & Rob,
I applaud you on the tone of your posts.
wow, i laughed out loud at reading that free will response, mainly because they tried to cram all that verbiage into a normal dialogue lol.
btw, thanks for stopping by my sight and commenting on my post. i did try to clarify what i was saying.
God bless
Jerry,
I must say that you have been unusual in the lack of acrimony in your discussions here -- most times discussions like this degenerate to ad hominem attacks, so thanks for the civil dialogue.
I think you misunderstood me in your last thought. I certainly believe that we are responsible to choose the cross as means of salvation rather than relying on our own way, and our rejection of God leaves us dead in our sins. But what I had questioned was your idea that what gives the most "meaning" to God's plan of redemption is a plan in which the autonomy of man is considered the one non-negotiable: overriding even the sovereignty of God to the point that responsibility and sovereignty are not even held in tension, as I originally proposed and which I believe the Bible teaches.
Your comment about the civil dialogue: we may disagree over this issue, but we both recognize Jesus as our Savior. We are brothers in Christ. Therefore, I don't see any other option but to dialogue in a civil manner. It has always bothered me that too often Christians have attacked each other with a vehemence that is detrimental to our cause and not worthy of our calling. In addition to that, your comments were thoughtful and reasoned, and as such they call for a respectful and reasoned response. Have a good day.
Post a Comment