This is part 2 of a series of posts in response to the post on the blog Arminian Today entitled "Did God Cause the Fall of Man?" I suggest you begin by reading Roy's post and my introduction to the series.
Because of the issue we are dealing with I think it would be helpful to begin with a couple of questions that can guide us.
Did God have a purpose in creating man?
What was that purpose?
Did God intend for Christ to come into the world?
If God is a God worthy of our worship (and He most certainly is) He doesn’t just create haphazardly. The Bible clearly indicates that God is a God of purpose. He doesn’t only have purpose in the world now but He had purpose in the world when He created it. In short, God’s purpose in creation was (and is) His glory (Isaiah 43:7). God is most glorified through the work of His Son, Christ Jesus, who is the “radiance of the glory of God” (Hebrews 1:3). The glory of God in Jesus Christ shines most brightly in the work that he has done for us in redeeming such vile sinners (Ephesians 1:6, 12, 14, 2 Cor. 4:6).
In the post to which I am responding Roy states,
“God did foreknow that Adam would fall but he did not force the Fall (1 Peter 1:20). God foreknew that Adam would transgress but he did not predestine the Fall.”
Sandwiched between two statements is his reference to 1 Peter 1:20,
“He [Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God” (1:20-21).
In no way does this text give the impression that God did not predestine the fall. One cannot separate what God foreknows from what he decrees, especially in the case of Christ. If Christ was foreknown in the same way that Roy says the fall of man was foreknown then God must not have even planned the incarnation. But I suggest to you that Christ was foreknown as the one who would come to save us from our sins. I suggest to you that God not only knew the fall would happen but that this fallen world is leading to the best of all possible worlds that will glorify God because of what He has done through the God-man Jesus Christ.
My confidence in this belief that God's purpose in creation was the same before and after the fall is not merely derived from logic or what I believe about God. What seals this belief for me is the continuity of the existence of the gospel before and after the fall. If this is true we can confidently say that the fall did not alter God's original intention in creation in any way. Here are a couple of examples:
Genesis 2:24 gives us a pre-fall institution of marriage. Certainly marriage was affected by the fall because Adam and Eve and all of their descendants would be marred by sin. However, the purpose of marriage was not changed by sin. Rather, the purpose of marriage was fulfilled because of the existence of sin. In Ephesians Paul tells us exactly what God's purpose has always been for marriage. After quoting Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31 Paul gives this new understanding to an old institution, "This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." The word "mystery" can be interpreted in the light of Ephesians 3:5 as something that was hidden to previous generations but now revealed.
In order for the argument that God "foreknew but did not predestine" something to make sense it should be demonstrated that God was not actively "predestining" something that was directly affected by the event in question. Revelation 13:8 tells us that the Book of Life was written before the foundation of the world. Not only that but it is the Book of Life of the Lamb who was Slain. For what purpose was the Lamb slain?
God's foreknowledge is not a passive taking in of the future. In fact, every instance of the word imply God activity and contradict the thought that He was passive.
Next week, in part 3, I will deal with the difference between God's decree of the fall and the charge that this would mean He "caused" the fall. In part 4 I will defend the Biblical concept of God's love in view of the fact that He predestined the fall of man.
Grace and Peace,
Stephen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Alright Stephen. I'll "play." Let me say at the outset, I feel sure that we'll agree to disagree on some issues but I pray for some healthy dialogue. I hope it will be beneficial to you as well.
You said, "One cannot separate what God foreknows from what he decrees, especially in the case of Christ." I say your statement is "Determinism 101." In other words, foreknowledge and decree/predestination are not synonymous.
You then move to an argument in regards to the foreknowledge of Christ, the Fall, and the incarnation. Again, foreknowlede and decree are not synonymous. In other words, your premise of equating Christ, the Fall, and the incarnation is a false premise. God can decree the incarnation and the offer of Christ, without decreeing the Fall.
I also believe in God's purpose for creation of being the same before and after the Fall. God's love for mankind could be seen before the Fall. Surely one has to believe it's even more on display now. Your examples of Gen 2:24 and Eph 5:31 don't negate the love of God. As you say, it was "fulfilled."
I look forward to seeing how in parts 3 and 4 you can justify determinism with love.
I trust you can hear my heart, even when I respectfully disagree.
Blessings,
Crowm
Crowm,
I'm not sure how God's love could be more on display now than it was previously. God is unchanging (Heb. 13:8) therefore His love is the same from everlasting to everlasting.
I'll let Stephen respond to the rest with his future posts since I already got to read them. I can also confirm he believes in no such "determinism." I believe Stephen will kindly address this paragraph tomorrow:
"You said, "One cannot separate what God foreknows from what he decrees, especially in the case of Christ." I say your statement is "Determinism 101." In other words, foreknowledge and decree/predestination are not synonymous."
Keep stopping by Crowm. You seem to be a very pleasent person to talk with. If you lived nearby we would invite you to our talks on Saturday mornings.
Grace upon grace,
JRL
Jason:
Actually the series continues Tuesday of next week.
Crowm,
Thank you for your kindness and willingness to "agree to disagree."
First let me say that I think we should stay away from the category shifting involved in frequent use of the term "Determinism." I am well aware that this is an accusation made against Calvinists but I really don't appreciate it being used of me or any other thoughtful Calvinist. The reason is because I came to my conclusions on these subjects after thoughtful and careful study of Scripture. I don't mind you saying that you think I have come to the wrong conclusion but do you have to make it sound like I simply read a few philosophy books and applied them to the Bible? I don't think you meant anything harsh in your use of the term but I think we should be careful to keep this debate within theology and not philosophy.
Ok, now I will respond to your objections.
(1) I apologize if my words made it sound like I don't make a distinction between foreknowledge and predestination. I agree that God foreknowing something and decreeing something are distinct actions (see Romans 8:29). But they are just that, actions. I was responding to Roy's use of 1 Peter 1:20 which he used to support God knowing beforehand that an event would happen apart from decreeing it. But Peter does not say "he was made manifest according to foreknowledge" it says "he was foreknown" that is an action of God. In any case that someone is "foreknown" by God it is clearly implied that there is more going on than Him simply knowing what would happen. How else do you makes sense of Romans 11:2? "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." Does that mean God has not rejected His people whom He knew about a long time ago?
If you disagree with my use of this word it would be easier for me to work with your own definition of the foreknowledge, foreknew, etc...
(2) I did not intend to present a "determinist" argument when using Genesis 2, Ephesians 5, and Revelation 13. I was demonstrating the continuity of God's purpose to glorify Himself through the redemption of man both before and after the Fall. You said, "Your examples of Gen 2:24 and Eph 5:31 don't negate the love of God." Of course they don't negate the love of God, they are a parable of God's love for His people. Here we have God instituting marriage, a parable of the gospel, before the Fall even happens. How amazing is that! If God were trying to distance Himself in Scripture from being the Sovereign God who predestines what He hates in order to show His power over it I don't think He would have done things like this. The cross was not "plan B." I know that you will agree with me on that but I truly mean that God's purpose throughout human history culminates in the gospel.
(3) I think what you said about the love of God is very telling of one of our differences. You say, "I also believe in God's purpose for creation of being the same before and after the Fall. God's love for mankind could be seen before the Fall. Surely one has to believe it's even more on display now." This shows the difference between our views of God's love. We will probably discuss that more after the final post a week from today.
I think I read what you wrote differently than Jason does and thus he responds a little bit differently than I will. I think God's love for humanity as a whole was demonstrated at some level in that He was merciful by not completely destroying everyone and now He has a salvific stance toward humanity that whoever will repent and trust Christ will be saved (John 3:16).
However, God has demonstrated His love for His people through the atoning death of Christ (I know this isn't about unconditional election or particular redemption so I have presuppositions from other texts that many of you don't share).
So I agree that, in some sense, God's love is "more on display now." I just don't make God's love His purpose in creation.
This is deep stuff guys. Perhaps it is a good thing that we have a week for further clarification and discussion.
Grace and Peace,
Stephen
Crowm,
Forgive me if I read into your comment about God's love being even more on display now. From what I can read you are a man who understands the Scripture and I'm willing to guess you know God is unchanging. I meant that in no offensive way at all. Please forgive for making that comment.
Hey guys!
I've been out of pocket for the last week or so. I see I've got some catching up to do.
So here goes:
JRL... I do believe God is unchanging (including His perfect love). However, I believe that there are certain times that we as human beings are allowed to see into God's character more and more. In other words, as we mature in Chirst, His grace, love, and mercy become more evident. I hope this clears up what I said. I took no offense to your comment Bro.
Stephan B...Let me take my turn at apologizing. I had no intention of offending you with the label of Determinism. I truly seek a healthy dialogue.
I've read your response and look forward to reading the posts from the last week.
Post a Comment