"Another objection has been raised that is very ancient indeed, and it has a great appearance of force. It is raised not so much by skeptics as by those who hold a part of the truth. It is this: prayer can certainly produce no results because the decrees of God have settled everything and those decrees are immutable. Now, we have no desire to deny the assertion that the decrees of God have settled all events. Certainly, it is our full belief that God has foreknown and predestinated everything that happens in heaven above or in the earth beneath. I fully believe that the foreknown station of a reed by the river is as fixed as the station of a king, and the chaff from the hand of the winnower is steered as the stars in their courses. Predestination embraces the great and the little; it reaches to all things. The question is, why pray? Might it not as logically be asked, Why breathe, eat, move, or do anything? We have an answer that satisfies us; namely, our prayers are in the predestination, and God has as much ordained His people’s prayers as anything else. So, when we pray, we are producing links in the chain of ordained facts. Destiny decrees that I should pray—I pray. Destiny decrees that I will be answered—the answer comes to me.
But we have a better answer than all this. Our Lord Jesus Christ comes forward, and He says to us, “My dear children, the decrees of God need not trouble you; there is nothing in them inconsistent with your prayers being heard. ‘I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you.’
Now, who is the One who that says this? Why, it is He who has been with the Father from the beginning: “The same was in the beginning with God” (John 1:2). He knows what the purposes of the Father are and what the heart of the Father is, for He has told us in another place, “The Father himself loveth you” (John 16:27). Now, since He knows the decrees of the Father and the heart of the Father, He can tell us with the absolute certainty of an eyewitness that there is nothing in the eternal purposes in conflict with this truth, that he who asks receives and he who seeks finds. He has read the decrees from beginning to end. Has He not taken the book, loosed the seven seals thereof (Rev. 5:5), and declared the ordinances of heaven? He tells you there is nothing there inconsistent with your bended knee and streaming eye and with the Father’s opening the windows of heaven to shower upon you the blessings that you seek.
Moreover, the One who promises to answer prayer is God Himself. The purposes of heaven are His own purposes. He who ordained the purpose here gives the assurance that there is nothing in it to prevent the efficacy of prayer. “I say unto you.” You who believe in Him, your doubts are scattered to the winds; you know that He hears prayer."
-Charles Spurgeon, The Power in Prayer
Ouch! Hyper-Calvinism! Hard to maintain in light of, say, the Holocaust. And a good deal of the Old Testament. But of course we all have our hermeneutics. I've enjoyed poking around on your blog. It's not quite everything I expected from a Master's grad; that is, it's better (meaning more even-keeled) in some ways than I thought it would be! :) Thanks for taking the time to do this blog. Peace to you.
ReplyDeleteHi Luke!
ReplyDeleteThanks for "poking around" the blog - great to have you visit.
Not sure I understood your comment, but if you were meaning that Spurgeon was hyper-Calvinist, then I would suggest you pick up Iain Murray's great little book "Spurgeon Versus Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching." What you find there is that Spurgeon is the furthest thing from true hyper-Calvinism. Yes, the same Spurgeon who penned the quote I gave in this post.
Hyper-Calvinism denies preaching to lost men and women because of the errant thought that to do so would disgrace the Gospel. But the Good News is to be preached to all men, even though it is only those who are worked upon by the Holy Spirit who will repent and believe.
The Bible is quite clear that the Gospel is to be preached to all men freely. It is also quite clear that God is the one who saves.
In light of your reference to the Holocaust, I think you have to do business with texts like this:
Daniel 4:34 "At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever,
for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand
or say to him, “What have you done?”
Or, Paul's use of God's words to Pharoah as found in Romans 9. Although it is difficult to grasp, the fact is God ordains all things, without ever once beign charged with the guilt that comes with sin and evil.
Of course, lots of big old books have been written about what the Bible teaches on this. I am just noting a couple out of a gazillion examples.
Peace to you, as well!
Hi Paul.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the response. I made this post last night rather late, and I see that I was vague and maybe even a bit tendentious! So thanks for dealing w/ me graciously.
I was using "hyper-Calvinism" to denote the view that God ordains every jot and tittle of history. If we're using it in your sense, to refer to the view that denies the need to evangelize non-Christians, then I'm more than ready to take your word for it that Spurgeon wasn't a hyper-calvinist in this sense. I'm also ready to admit that being a hyper-Calvinist in your sense doesn't necessarily follow (at least not logically) from being a hyper-Clavinist in my sense. It at least seems possible to me that God ordains every jot and tittle of history and yet that Christians have some sort of obligation to fulfill the great comission. (At least, I'm not smart enough to argue to the opposite conclusion.) Of course, whether or not hyper-Calvinism in my sense *in fact* tends to lead to hyper-Calvinism in your sense is another, empirical question. But that another time.
I agree that someone who denies that God ordains every jot and tittle of history--including almost unimaginable evils like the Holocaust; the current widespread rape and abuse of thousands of Sudanese women displaced from their home; the pain, fear, disease, and death suffered by children as the result of war--I agree that anyone who denies that these things are ordained by God has to face up to texts like Daniel 4 and Romans 9.
Of course, anyone who maintains that God ordains these things likewise has to grapple with their own set of problem texts. Two that jump to mind are Genesis 6:6 and Jeremiah 7:30-31. The former reads: “And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart” (RSV). Now I admit that this isn’t unambiguous proof against the view you espouse; if your view is correct, however, it does entail that the very state of affairs God is supposed to be sorry about was, in actuality, ordained by God ahead of time. It’s at least difficult to see how this could be so. One read through the OT shows us that God is often angry, sad, disappointed, happy—in short, responsive—toward his covenant people. Strange to think that God could be *genuinely* upset or sad or responsive generally when he’s agreed to it all—and moreover *ordained* it all—beforehand.
Jeremiah 7:30-31 is, I think, even more problematic for your sort of view: “For the sons of Judah have done evil in my sight, says the Lord; they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to defile it. And they have built the high place of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and daughters in the fire; which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind” (RSV). That last clause is telling; if we read it literally, it seems to entail that God didn’t ordain these child sacrifices. If it didn’t enter God’s mind that the Israelites would sacrifice their kids, then a fortiori God didn’t ordain those events.
One common answer to these texts is that they’re blatantly anthropomorphic, and so shouldn’t be read literally. Instead, we should be reading these texts, and the OT generally, through some sort of lens; when we want to know which texts are literal, which metaphorical, we should refer them to some other, clearer part of Scripture and use that as a standard by which to adjudicate their real meaning. In evangelical circles, the hermeneutic touchstone is generally Romans. Okay, fine. Note, however, that this underlying guiding principle—that OT texts like the one I’ve listed should be interpreted in light of Romans (particularly Romans 9)—is itself an extra-biblical commitment. I see nowhere in the canon where such a principle is explicitly stated; it’s inferred. But it’s extremely difficult to see what sort of straight-up *biblical* considerations could legitimize this inference over its competitors. What legitimizes the inference is more a commitment to a certain theological program—in this case the Reformational view that Scripture interprets Scripture, and more importantly that the OT interprets the New—a theological program not explicitly stated in the Bible itself.
My point is simply that we could attempt to proof-text each other into submission all day long on this issue. Ultimately, our differences are going to come down to the fact that our extra-biblical commitments are different. No doubt we both think our extra-biblical commitments are consistent and plausible on the Bible itself, that the Bible supports them in some way. But I doubt either of us could offer proof texts for those commitments; I doubt you could offer clear proof-texts of the view that these OT passages should be read in light of Romans 9 (or whatever).
For me, my reasons for denying that God ordains every jot and tittle of the world’s history are primarilyy philosophical. And I know I can’t offer proof texts for them. Basically, I think God is morally perfect (no shadow of turning and all), and that, b/c God is morally perfect, God would bring into existence a world with as little evil and as much good as possible. But if God ordains every jot and tittle of history, then it seems God could have--and, perhaps at the risk of sounding a bit irreverent, his morally prefect nature would indeed require him to--ordain a world with far less evil than our own; it thus follows either that God doesn’t exist, or God doesn’t ordain every jot and tittle. I opt for the latter. God in his goodness grants humans significant (non-compatibilist, libertarian) freedom; he wants creatures that freely love him, not creatures that are ordained to love him. This commits me to reading certain biblical texts in certain ways; it might commit me to denying sola scriptura as well. But so far as I can tell not even the Reformers were able to pull off an unflinching allegiance to sola scriptura. The very doctrine of sola scriptura—where can I find that in Scripture? Anyways, I hope you’re well; thanks for the interaction. Peace.
Luke
Luke -
ReplyDeleteForgive me for the delay in getting back to you! Sunday is a busy day for me and then we are off on our Week of Prayer, so my time is limited.
I have been puzzling a little over how to answer your comments. Not so much in what to say, but in how to say it. I could take the route of answering each of your objections in turn (which I am fairly confident I could do :-) ) - but that would make for an enormous post and with my limited schedule this week I wouldn't get to it for a while.
So, I opt for taking a stab at what I think is the heart of where, I believe, you are quite mistaken. It is found in this statement you wrote: "For me, my reasons for denying that God ordains every jot and tittle of the world’s history are primarilyy philosophical."
I agree with you 100%. Your reasons are all driven by philosophical reservations. But I would urge you, brother, to consider the danger in this. It is no "hermeneutical presumption" to suggest that the Bible must be our teacher and authority when it comes to understanding God. The Bible itself claims this authority. If we choose to not listen to the authoritative text, then we have just switched allegiances from God to self.
What I am suggesting is that you are depending far more on your own reasoning capabilities than you are on the data of the Truth that God has given us. If your philosophical sensibilities are offended by the text, then perhaps your philosophy needs to change?
I am not trying to put you down by this, but I think you betray your true loyalties when you shift from taking God for what He says and move into the realm of "this all has to sit nicely with me in order for me to accept it." This borders on idol-crafting.
If I am misunderstanding you,I am very open to correction.
In some ways, I feel very sheepish even bringing this up - after all, this is a public forum and we don't even know each other and I am attempting to address what amounts to very personal heart motivations in your life!
But as I do so, I am trying to speak to my own heart as well. Am I willing to take God at His Word no matter what it says? Am I broken every week in my study as I learn His will from His Word? I think this is really the heart of the matter and this is why I address it here, so that everyone who reads this can ask themselves the same question.
I hope this makes some sense. If you are still checking these comments I would be most interested in your reply, which you are welcome to post here or email me privately at info at gfcto dot com.
Please don't interpret my brevity as resentment or the like - I just have a small window of time in which to reply.
In His Grace,
Paul
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteI truly appreciate your gracious and heartfelt response. I admit there's a tendency to erect idols in place of God, as Calvin so eloquently puts it in Institutes 1; no doubt I too am prone to this temptaion. There is certainly the need to be self-critical of our views; to see clearly what motivates them, why we hold them, etc., in the hopes that we can avoid the idolatry you mention. I also agree that the Bible should be normative for Christians. I'm just not sure we can get an unambiguous hermeneutic out of Scripture itself. No doubt we can conclude some things about Scripture on the basis of Scripture itself. But it seems to me that common evangelical hermeneutics typically overstep by a wide margin what they're entitled to conclude about Scripture on the basis of Scripture.
I don't see, for instance, how we can get something like the robust and oftentimes quite subtle doctrine of inerrancy propounded by many evangelicals out of Scripture itself. Sure we can conclude from Scripture that Scripture is God-breathed, useful for instruction, correction, etc. (and probably a bunch of other things too), but what about the common distinction made by inerrantists between original and copied MSS? Where does Scripture tell us that the original MSS, but not necessarily the copied ones, are inerrant? Or where, again, do we find a doctrine like sola scriptura in Scripture?
My point is simply that I can't see how one can escape using philosophical commitments when interpreting Scripture. That, I suspect, is the real nub of our disagreement. My view is that it's just better to admit that, when we interpret God's involvement w/ the world through the lens of Romans 9 rather than OT passages, this is grounded in a principle that can't be extracted word-for-word from Scripture, but that nonetheless finds ample inferential support therein. Once we admit that this is how our respective hermeneutics work, we can get down to the real business of figuring out which one is better supported by Scripture. It might turn out that this is an extremely difficult question, that it's just not clear which hermeneutic is better supported by the text. Or maybe a definitive argument can be made; I'm not sure.
BTW, I think that two of the three philosophical premises that figured in my argument for denying that God ordains every jot and tittle of history can more-or-less be extracted straight-up from Scripture. Those premises are simply that (1) God is morally perfect and (2) God is omnipotent. If we conjoin this w/ the seemingly self-evident premise that (3) a morally perfect being would create a world with as much good and as little evil as possible, and add to this your premise that (4) God ordains every jot and tittle of history, which seems to entail that God has complete control over how much good and evil the world contains, it follows that this world contains as much good and as little evil as possible. But this seems manifestly false. Therefore (1)-(4) comprise an inconsistent set, and one has to go. I reject (4).
Maybe you'd take issue with (3). Or maybe you'd agree to the conclusion. Or perhaps you'd challenge the validity of the argument. Whichever route you'd take, I'd be interested to hear it. Thanks again for such a generous response. I pray your Week of Prayer goes well. Peace,
luke
Luke,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments and the spirit in which they are written.
In one sense, you could say my hermeneutic is based in the following pre-supposition: the Bible is true. So, when I read texts that affirm this, I find they affirm my pre-supposition. (On a sidenote, I have approached my Bible with many other pre-suppositions that have not agreed with the text of the Scripture. Hopefully, when that happens, I change those presuppositions! But that betrays my confidence in the authority and reliability of the text.)
In other words, I admit I approach the text with a certain mindset, but the text affirms that mindset over and again. Take Psalm 119 for instance.
In your particular example (is God sovereign over evil), I arrive at my conclusion by a large battery of texts, not the least of which is one like Romans 13:1-2. "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." Paul, who pages earlier had spoken of God's sovereign control over Pharoah (a fact affirmed by the human author of Exodus), says in two complementing ways that God has placed every civil authority that exists. Obviously, this includes evil authorities. So, your argument must answser this text. What else could Paul have meant if he did not mean this?
Plus, one might add all the OT references to evil rulers that God claims to be in charge of: Nebudchadnezzar, Cyrus, Sennacharib, etc.
Do you think it is possible that in your noble (and I mean that word genuinely) effort to defend God from the charge of evil, you have perhaps not granted Him the ability to be Sovereign, yet not the author of sin?
This is what I believe the Bible teaches, even though I find it stretches my mind immensely to put it all together! I would prefer to stand on the solid ground of taking the Lord at His Word and having to re-think my categories than what I believe is the shifting soil of making God fit into my constructs of justice, love and goodness. In other words, I want to let the Lord inform those categories for me and have my mind changed to think His thoughts after Him.
I am not trying to avoid the logical arguments you made above, rather I am trying to model what I think is a better approach to the questions. I believe it is better to deal with individual texts in the context of the Scripture as a whole. This does not exclude logic (since the Scripture is infinitely logical becuase God is its Author), rather it forces us to think in Biblical categories rather than purely ethical or human ones.
Perhaps that just betrays further presuppositions on my part, though!