PREDESTINATE

PREDESTINATE By "predestinate" I mean that God fore-ordains or forelimits all events such that nothing takes place contrary to His eternal plan, and though men devise sinful things in their own hearts and act voluntarily to accomplish them, even these acts were purposed by God to take place, as the very crucifying of our saviour: "The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." {Acts 4:26-28} and Joseph’s brothers sending him to Egypt unknowingly through jealously..." But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." {Genesis 50:20} and David numbering Israel (which he was later held accountable for)..." And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." {2 Samuel 24:1} and The Hivites going to battle against Israel..." For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they the hivites should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses." {Joshua 11:20} Many more similar passages could be referenced. [i]The scriptures are also abundant with more general statements of God’s all-encompasing will and purpose: " For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." {Colossians 1:16-17}[ii] "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 stand, and I will do all my pleasure."[iii] {Isaiah 46:9-10} "Lord, Thou wilt ordain peace for us; for Thou also hast wrought all our works in us." {Isaiah 26:12} [iv] Indeed, the very surety of our predestination to salvation is grounded in the truth that God works all things after the counsel of His will: "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will." {Ephesians 1:11} If the "all things" under consideration only extends to the predestination of his children to salvation, then Paul’s argument for the assurance of this fact is groundless and the verse should might have read something like...according to the purpose of Him who worketh these things after the counsel of His own will. Also, chance is precluded even from events we would normally attribute to chance: "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD." {Proverbs 16:33} When it speaks in scripture of things occuring that are " of the Lord" this seems to signify that It was the Lord’s purpose and intention that it would come to pass. As shown above, this kind of language is even applied at times to events that involved the sinful actions of men, like waging of wars and Joseph being sent to Israel. Many times good people are zealous to free God up from anything that might seem to attribute sin or guilt to God, and in the minds of some, saying that He intended it to take place is just as bad as Him doing it Himself. But we must remember that this is God who is purely Holy and cannot sin. There is no law or judgement above Him to which He can be accountable, nor is there a single sinful aspect in His being. He does all things well and cannot sin. What I am advocating is that we submit to the scriptures and recognize that God has revealed about Himself that His will is accomplished. In heaven, it is accomplished willingly and knowingly. That is why we pray "thy will be done as in heaven, so on earth." On earth, His will is accomplished by working all things together for good ie. men devise and invent wickedness in their own evil hearts, but God works it all together for the accomplishment of His purposes so that we never must fear our enemies or what they can do to us, but fear God alone who has power over the hearts of men, both to renew or to harden as He sees fit.[v] -these scriptures humbly submitted for the brethren to consider,

[i] It is a fallacy of logic to reason from the specific to the general. I reject extreme limitations on God’s providence that cannot embrace these passages. I also reject the false logic that catapults these passages, against logic, to a universal conclusion.

[ii] The question of creation and of predestination are distinct issues. I doubt that any Primitive Baptist would question God’s creation of all things. I certainly do not.

[iii] We can safely unite against neo-orthodox heresy that limits God’s knowledge, including any foreknowledge. Knowing and causing are distinct issues. This passage affirms God’s unrestricted omniscience. It does not address the question of the extent of His "pleasure." {22}

{22} The problem I perceive with the above statement is how does God have knowledge of something that He did not intend eternally? {25} God is perfect and has all knowledge, so how can he gain knowledge of events that he did not purpose?

Also, I respectfully disagree that your interpretation of the verse is complete. It says that God declares the end from the beginning. What can make something more certain than God declaring it to be so? Moreover, if it is only talking about foreknowledge, why is the verse ended with "my counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure?"

{25} The question has been asked something to the effect: How can God know something He did not eternally predestinate? To say that God has to predestinate something in order for Him to know it, is limiting the knowledge of God. His foreknowledge it would seem would be no great thing, if He only knows about what He has predetermined to occur. I like a statement that I first heard from Elder S. T. Tolley many years ago. This may not be a direct quote, but it goes something like this: Not only does God know all that has been and all that will be, but He also knows all that might have been but will never be.

[iv] This verse comfortably agrees with1 Corinthians 14:33. We’d have a problem if it stated that God ordained both peace and confusion.

[v] I agree that we should wrestle with Scripture and seek clearer and deeper understanding of its teachings. I offer that the author of this thesis has presented a position that conflicts with a number of passages; the ones that I cited above as only a few examples. When Scripture presents us with “apparent” conflict or contradictions, I believe its Author is challenging us to take long, reflective thought regarding the points and to find a reconciling interpretation that embraces both passages without contradiction.

I do not embrace the finite limitations imposed by some of our folks on God’s predestination and/or providence. I equally do not embrace the idea that God is the cause of sin, of sinful acts, of lust, of pride, etc. The fact that God “predestinated” the circumstances of our Lord’s crucifixion is another example of fallacious logic, reasoning from the specific to the general. Scripture states one point; it rejects the other. {23}

{23} What do you mean by saying you do not embrace the finite limitations imposed on God’s predestination and/or providence?

I do not believe that God is the cause of sin, sinful acts, or sinful thoughts either. However, in response to the above, I wish to add, the scriptures say that Herod, Pilot and others united together to do all that God had determined before should be done. It might not say "predestinate" but the idea is the same and I believe the greek word is the same or similar. If these wicked acts were necesary to accomplish what God had determined before should take place, than how are these acts contrary to God’s plan? {34}

{34} Theology and semantics often overlap. I suspect that many times, particularly among our own beloved people, issues of semantics have improperly been labelled as theological and used to foment war among saints. In this piece I will address only two points, one related to your post and one related to the need for all of us to guard our communications. In the Isaiah passage in which God states that He declares the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, it appears that you are saying that God can only declare the end from the beginning if he positively causes all things. In the next point I will raise this issue again and question this conclusion. We "declare" the gospel, but we certainly don’t claim any causative role in the redemption of sin-cursed men. To declare is to state a fact on the basis of knowledge. We know many things that we had no hand in causing. I grant that this illustration cannot in all points be imputed onto God, but I offer it simply to make the point that knowing and declaring do not necessitate causing. God can know without being the active or causative agent of all acts and events of human history. The passage attributes declaring to God, but not causative necessity. When I read your piece to which I responded, I gathered the distinct impression that you believe that God caused sin and all acts of evil men. Your latest post seems to stop distinctly short of that conclusion. If I correctly understand your latest post, then we need a dialogue on semantics, not theology. Perhaps we also need a dialogue on the necessity of clear communications. It is easy for us to assume that people to whom we speak or write are on the same page with us. However, in any area of major significance we may assume too much in such a conclusion. I learn, sometimes painfully, that in clear communications I must study my audience to know where they are. Then I frame my communications to reach them where they are, not ignore them and communicate to myself so that I understand what I’m saying. Biblical example; when Paul preached in a synagogue, he reasoned from the Jewish (Old Testament) Scriptures. When he preached to Greek philosophers at Mars Hill, he reasoned from ancient Greek philosophers and poets. He reached out to his audience and started where they were, not where he was. In both cases he ended up at Calvary and an empty tomb. I believe this example instructs us far more than any of us often heed. It is a safe assumption, I believe, to say that most contemporary Primitive Baptists view predestination as altogether positive and causative. From your latest post, I gather that you view it from two perspectives. On one hand, the causing of our salvation and of good works, you view it as causative. On the other hand, the matter of sin and evil, you view it as permissive and limiting, not causative. Thus, if I understand you correctly, you do not believe that God is the cause or author of sin. {35} When I talk with people outside the PB camp regarding salvation, I find myself increasingly asking a central question, "From your theological perspective, which comes first, faith or regeneration?" If they respond that faith comes first, then I know that we have a theological difference. If they respond that regeneration comes first, I give them a hearty "Amen," and try to build common ground between me and them. Our differences may be more semantic than theological. {36} On the question of predestination, I am likewise inclined. If a person states, as several specific individuals have done who professed to be Absolute Predestinarian PBs, that they believe that God is the active cause of sin and of all evil among mankind, then we have a theological problem. If they deny that God is the cause of sin, then I believe that we have a semantic problem. {37}

Regarding the question of "time salvation," I believe our folks made a legitimate effort to communicate their distinctives to non-PBs by introducing this term. I wouldn’t demean the men who framed the footnotes to the London Confession in Fulton, KY around the beginning of the twentieth century. I believe it is likely that Beebe and Trott attempted a similar task with their terminology. As some who now attack the "time salvation" terminology do in ignoring the underlying intent, however ill-conceived or poorly the term has accomplished its objective, I believe that Beebe and Trott should have taken note of the schism and misunderstanding that their terminology was causing. Both they and perhaps our contemporaries who use the "time salvation" term would communicate far more clearly to return to Biblical terminology and Biblical definitions of those terms, for ever forsaking embellished terms that do not appear in Scripture. {42} Agree or not, if we know that most of our folks view the word predestination as being exclusively causative, then it is incumbent on us to follow Paul’s model. Start with their understanding, define our terms in ways that they understand to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding. Never say or write anything that leaves the potential open for anyone to falsely conclude that we believe that God is causative in sin. {38} In my personal struggle to deal with the various Scriptures that use the terms save, saved, salvation, etc., I have formed the idea that the Biblical concept of salvation is comparable to a logical continuum. It begins in eternity past, flows through all of time, and concludes in eternity "future." Rather than introducing artificial terms to deal with any aspect of salvation, I try to locate the use of the word in my study passage on the salvation continuum. Granted, the pot is calling the kettle black! Scripture doesn’t use the term continuum, does it? Rather than trying to reframe terminology, I’m trying to communicate the Biblical concept in contemporary terms so that people, PBs and non-PBS alike, will truly understand what I’m trying to teach. We may have friendly locker-room dialogue regarding the advisability of using the term "time salvation," or, for that matter, the term "predestination," but our objective should be to communicate clearly-above the realm of easily misunderstood terms or intentional obfuscation-what we truly believe.

I believe the same obligation falls with equal weight on those among us who use the term "absolute predestination." If you know that our folks have a pre-conceived definition of predestination as altogether causative, start with a clear definition of the term as you use it. Make sure they understand that you do not hold-that you whole-heartedly reject-the idea that God is in any way causatively involved in sin. {39} The English translation of the NT uses the terms of predestination four times, but the same Greek word appears two additional times in the NT, both related to the sufferings and crucifixion of our Lord at the hands of evil men. A reasonable interpretation of those two passages might posit that God, in this concept of "predestination," limited, rather than caused, what these evil men did. From this footing, we might more clearly communicate our true beliefs and avoid the false and acrimonious charges of holding that God causes sin.

I painfully listen to a tape of every sermon I preach at the church I pastor. My objective is to spot points that I do not communicate clearly, and there are few sermons indeed that I hear that I don’t critique fairly severely. Please understand that my suggestions for clear communication are not intended to sound preachy. This challenge haunts every one of us and demands constant improvement, and constant effort to stay in touch with our congregation to know where they are so that we can talk to them understandably and move them to where they should be.

{35} I heartily agree with the essence of what you are saying. I realize now that perhaps I approached the issue using my terminology in a different way than some brethren among the PBs may understand it. I admit that I am new among the PBs. I have read quite a bit though, of PBs and others, so much of my terminology comes from how I have heard it described in the writings of the past, rather than from discussion with primitive baptists today. See my comments interspersed and maybe we can continue to clear up the semantical differences...{ 41} I think that your statement is an accurate assesment of my belief in predestination.

{36} I like this approach. It is often hard to explain to Arminians, Calvinists, or any other non-PB what we believe about salvation. Beginning with regeneration and faith is something that people can understand without getting bogged down in semantics. I ought to try this sometime.

{37} There are really PBs who believe that God is the active cause of sin and evil among mankind? I did not realize this. I thought perhaps that there were a few rare cases where someone actually claimed God was the cause of sin, but did not think that this view ever could really prevail among biblical baptists. I do not believe that God is the cause or author of sin. In reading old "absoluters" like Beebe and Trott, and in reading reformers like Zanchius, I have found that they all are certain to assert that God is not the direct or effectual cause or author of sin. They used terms like "predestinated to permit," in order to differentiate between God’s predestining of sin (not causative) and His predestination of his positive acts (causative). Whether or not the term "predestinate to permit" is a good term is not what I want to debate. I just wanted admit that I have never heard anyone teach that God is the author of sin and didn’t realize that anyone was actually teaching that.

{38} Here is my dilemna. I read a lot of Beebe, Trott, and others, before I ever even knew many real PBs. I got acquanted with PB doctrine through reading more than through hearing preaching, at least at first. Now, I have read Oliphant, Newman, Hassell, and others as well, and realize that they didn’t always use the same language. However, I never came across any unbiblical explainations in Beebe or Trott’s writings. I generally found that they were very sound and didn’t pull an punches or water down the truth. Same with Oliphant and the others. If Beebe and Trott are at fault, it must be, in my opinion, only in their choice of words, because I have always found their explainations to be very faithful to the biblical record.

{39} I have seen why the term "absolute predestination" can be a problem. I sometimes just wish that those who do not like the term would read Pink’s "The Sovereignty of God," or "Absolute Predestination" by Beebe, or "Predestination" by Hassell, or "Absolute Predestination" by Zanchius. Because I think they would find that even those who might be labeled "absoluters" are explaining the sovereignty of God in very similar ways as "non-absoluters" like Oliphant and Hassell did. It comes down to semantics again, and perhaps both "sides" are guilty of inventing or misusing some terms. For example, I have read some articles by "absoluters" that railed on conditional time salvation. Indeed, the doctrine they were railing against did seem pretty odious and probably has been taught, however, I have also heard some very biblical explainations of "conditional time salvation." It can be quite confusing! 547

{41} I must commend your gracious and insightful response. Having learned more of your personal history from your latest note, I can understand your original post more clearly. If you don’t know an extreme view exists, you don’t know that you need to take measures to avoid being interpreted as holding it!

I too have read Pink and Zanchius and treasure both works, along with Hassell of course. Elder David Pyles is in process of developing a manuscript, hopefully for eventual publication, in which he attempts to define some of the nuances of difference between Primitve Baptists and Calvinists. Of course, there are numerous areas of common ground. Typical of what I’ve seen of this brother, he takes great pains to find balance in his presentation, perhaps more than some extremists would approve. I became aware of this work when he sent it to me for editorial comments. One of the delightful surprises in this work is a rather extensive section that deals with Beebe and Trott, including a significant number of quotes from them. His conclusion is precisely what yours is. He makes a good case that they never believed or intended to teach that God is the author or cause of sin.

Brother, I am thrilled to discover that our apparent difference is far more a matter of semantics that theological. Praise God for constant blessings. I have a thought that would be interesting reading for me, perhaps also for others in the group. Knowing that there really are some folks out there who attribute the positive cause of sin to God, how would you word your original thesis to make sure that no one interpreted you as standing in that camp? {48}

I grew up in northern Mississippi among Primitive Baptists, so I, unlike you, have spent my whole lifetime among them. This can be simultaneously a delightful blessing and a curse. We both are witnesses from different perspectives of God’s loving grace and mercy. However, from my earliest memories our folks labored to avoid the idea that they believed that God authored or caused sin. I recall many conversations with my elder ministers regarding Biblical lessons on God’s providence. After listening to my novice explanations, they’d frequently caution that they understood and agreed with my views, but "You must always be careful not to leave the impression that you believe that God causes sin." This caution intimidated me against developing any cohesive view of God’s providence till years later. To finally be able to read a passage involving God’s wondrous intervention among men and to embrace it with joyful conviction has been liberating and joyful for me. Elder Bradley was a significant instrument in the Lord’s hand to help me come to terms with this truth, one of a very long list of reasons that I thank God for him.

I do not discount the caution of those older men who lived in an era where the extreme view was perhaps more common. Their caution has been affirmed in specific instances in which I have engaged in personal conversation with men who claim Beebe and Trott’s tradition, but who interpret their use of predestination so as to make God the active cause or author of all things, sin included. They do not make the distinctions that you made in your latest post. 522

{42} Question: I appreciate both the tone and substance of your post. The statement above, however, puzzles me. May I ask, in lieu of this suggestion that we "forsake embellished terms that do not appear in Scripture," would you also reject the term "Trinity" to describe the tripersonal nature of God, since it is not a Biblical term? What about the expression "Total Depravity" to describe the post-fall nature of man, an embellished term that does not appear in Scripture? Further, does the same reasoning apply to the term "Sovereignty of God," since the term "sovereignty" is conspicuously absent in the Bible? {44} In my opinion, it is no more confusing to employ the "time salvation" terminology, since the concept is clearly Biblical, than it is to speak of the "Trinity," "total depravity of man," or "sovereignty of God". As long as some modern evangelicals promote the "lordship salvation" paradigm (and terminology), there will be a need to continue to teach the Biblical concept of "time salvation," whatever terminology is employed to teach it. As already noted, Hassell and Oliphant and the Fulton brethren used the expression without apology.

If we abandon the interpretive habit of distinguishing between eternal and temporal salvation (as the Fulton brethren referenced), opting instead to interpret every reference to the verb "to save" as part of a "continuum" of salvation, then how should we explain verses like1 Timothy 4:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Mr 16:16;1 Corinthians 1:21;1 Corinthians 15:1-3;1 Timothy 2:15(and a plethora of other verses that employ the verb "to save" in a conditional sense) lest we confound monergism and synergism and repeat the error of those who attempt to mix Divine sovereignty and human responsibility in eternal salvation? On a personal note, because the concept is Biblical, I am not inclined to abandon the terminology of a "salvation" that consists of temporal blessings in obedience for "lordship salvation," any more than I am inclined to reject the terminology "Trinity," "sovereignty" or "total depravity," for these concepts are likewise thoroughly Biblical.

I believe that we ought to use terms consistent with their Biblical, not creedal, usage (vis a vis "perseverence" and "preservation") but that does not necessarily preclude the use of extra-canonical terms to classify a specific theological emphasis (vis a vis "Trinity;" "total depravity;" etc). The terminology of "time salvation" surfaced because of the need to properly interpret passages that use the verb "to save" as a contingency of man’s act of believing, repentance, baptism, etc., in lieu of the gospel affirmation that salvation is "not of works lest any man should boast." The popular solution to this dilemma, of course, is the claim for synergism, i.e. that both God’s sovereignty and man’s works are involved in salvation and since the paradox cannot be reconciled, we must simply accept it as a mystery. PB’s, however, have tended to reject that popular formula as a logically flawed hermeneutic. Instead, our people have insisted that the correct way to understand the apparent antithesis between verses that speak of salvation as "all of grace" and those that assert that man must do something in order to be delivered is to distinguish between sonship and discipleship, union and communion, relationship and fellowship, or, if you please, eternal and temporal salvation. I think that our people have been right "on target".

Someone once said, "Never take down a fence until you discover why it was erected in the first place." In all candor, until I am given a better way to explain the passages that say "Save yourselves from this untoward generation" and "... by which also you are saved, if you keep in memory what I have preached unto you," etc., without resorting to the logical fallacy of synergism, I will continue to use the same terminology I’ve heard our brethren use from my earliest childhood, for I am convinced that the Primitive Baptist habit of distinguishing between sonship and discipleship is logically and hermeneutically consistent, as well as thoroughly Biblical.

{44} Good thoughts brother,

I offered my thoughts as a personal reflection, not as a rule to be imposed on anyone else. In the case of Trinity, Total Depravity, Substitutionary Atonement, and any number of other extra-biblical terms we are dealing with terms that have gained a long-standing historical and theological meaning within the broad conservative Christian community. Our term "time salvation" is unique to our own culture. I suspect (don’t have any specific historical basis, just a hunch) that our forefathers developed the term with the intent of improving communication regarding our unique distinctives from other theological perspectives that tend to force every salvation passage in the Bible in some way into the eternal-theological setting. My concern with the term is personal and simple. When I’ve tried to use it to explain our unique views to non-PBs, it tended to further confuse them, not clarify the issue for them.

Another thought that will reveal my age, when I was young in years and in the faith, our folks stood nearly alone on the grace side of the theological "continuum." Today MacArthur, Sproul, and several other people have become notable in their general defense of the doctrines of grace, though they and we don’t share all ideas in common. Perhaps when we stood alone the term time salvation more effectively communicated our uniqueness. A term developed to communicate in a given era, unlike the timeless terminology of Scripture, may outlive its effectiveness. If so, it should die a quiet and peaceful death. I have no problem with the concept of discipleship and faithfulness with accompanying blessings that our folks refer to when they use this term. Thus I have no theological battle with them over the term. My single point lies in this matter of effectively communciating accurately and understandably what we want people to know about us. I struggle with replacement terms and must confess that I haven’t found a really good one yet. You and I are fully on the same page regarding the example passages that you mentioned.

If anyone has better, or more communicative, and Biblical, terms to suggest, I’m all ears. {45}

{45} Your explanation makes sense, but I’m not sure that I agree that the terminology was developed with an apologetic or evangelistic purpose. I tend to think that the terminology served to safeguard the distinction between the gift of eternal life and the duty of practical godliness. Could it be that our old brethren practiced the discipline of "rightly dividing the word" because of their conviction to achieve an accurate and consistent hermeneutic?

If I understand you correctly, it appears that you would at least endorse the legitimacy of the concept, i.e. that the Bible sometimes employs the verb "to save" to describe deliverances that have temporal as opposed to eternal ramifications, even though you find the terminology unfortunate. It seems to me that behind much of the antipathy expressed against "time salvation" in the past few years, however, is a genuine distaste for the concept itself. My point is simply: If a person jettisons the legitimacy of the concept, regardless of what we call it, then he must of necessity interpret every reference to "salvation" in eternal terms. Such a hermeneutic makes for a very strange theological soup! As for any "better, or more communicative, and Biblical, terms to suggest," how about "Now Salvation" ("... baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God"1 Peter 3:21)? {46}

{46} As I tried to state, I have no problem with the concept that the word "salvation" appears in Scripture in a wide diversity of settings, unquestionably including issues related to our discipleship and blessings that we experience in the here and now. Sometimes the word relates to discipleship, as with the passages that you mentioned and many more. Sometimes, even within that scope, it is used far more restrictively yet. For example, the woman who is "saved in childbearing" is saved to a valued teaching role. She is forbidden from teaching in the role of pastor or teacher in the public gathering of the church, but she is saved to a respected teaching role if her children validate her skill as a teacher by remaining steadfast in their own faith.

I must confess that to some extent I do not understand the tension that is presently going on over this term. When we get them beyond semantics to the core of what they believe, I have not met more than a precious few PBs who do not embrace the concept of "salvation" within the perameters of discipleship and attendant blessings, as well as eternal salvation with our Savior in heaven. My part, at least (I can’t speak or write for others.), is purely semantic. It seems a bit incredible to me that a PB would even attempt to force every single mention of the word salvation and its derivatives in Scripture into the eternal and theological construct. Call me naive after nearly fifty years of preaching; I simply haven’t encountered them. The word and concept, either in Greek or English, implies ideas that we must derive from the context by sound hermeneutics. Saved is generally agreed to mean the equivalent of "delivered." Okay, what is implied? Delivered from what? Delivered to what? We cannot interpret and apply the passage till we answer those questions. Of all people, I once heard R. C. Sproul in a radio broadcast making these very points. In his thoughts, when someone asks if you are saved, you have every right to respond with a question, "Saved from what? Saved to what?" Their question is too open-ended to make logical sense, either linguistically or theologically.

I hope these thoughts clarify my theological perspective,

{48} Thanks again for your comments and I praise the Lord as well to find common ground. I will try now to re-word my original message with a better understanding and more careful use of terminology: (I will use some of the same scriptures and attempt more clarity in my explaination. A statement was made that God’s predestination does not extend to all events. Instead of trying to agree or disagree with this statement, I want to examine what the Bible teaches about the relationship of God’s decrees to the events that take place in time. This will avoid arguing about the definition of "predestinate," since this term is used in the bible, exlusively in the context of God’s plan of redemption.

First of all, I want to state clearly that I believe God hates sin and has no fellowship with it. He is not the direct cause of sinful acts, {49} nor does He positively work a sinful nature in people. Even when he "hardens" I believe it is through withdrawing his restraining influence or as a just punishment for disobedience. In no way does it make God a doer of sin. When the sun withdraws its light from the day, darkness is created. However, the sun cannot be justly called the cause of darkness. Even more so can God not be called the cause of sin simply because he withholds his restraining or redeeming power.

Moreover, I believe that God did not create the reprobate primarily to damn them. His primary purpose in creating both the reprobate and the redeemed was for his own glory. God’s purpose to choose a people for redemption was not a secondary plan concieved by God in reaction to the fall, but rather it was a plan as eternal as his foreknowledge of the fall of man. In choosing the elect to salvation, there is also in that choice a necessary passing over of the rest. So God’s choosing a people, inevitably ensures that the rest will not be saved, since God, in His foreknowledge, recognized that they would fall and would not be able to save themselves. However, I would note that their own sins, and not their not being chosen, is the cause of their condemnation. God was under no obligation to choose them. With that said, I will go on.

I believe that although God is not the cause of man’s sin, God has such power, such sovereignty, over mankind and the universe, that nothing can take place beyond what his will allows. Though men devise sinful things in their own hearts and act voluntarily to accomplish them, even these acts were purposed by God to take place, as the very crucifying of our saviour:

"The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done." {Acts 4:26-28} and Joseph’s brothers sending him to Egypt unknowingly through jealously...

"But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." {Genesis 50:20} and David numbering Israel (which he was later held accountable for)...

"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." {2 Samuel 24:1} and The Hivites going to battle against Israel...

"For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they the hivites should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses." {Joshua 11:20}

Many more similar passages could be referenced. Though God does not cause the sin to manifest in these men’s hearts, you can tell by the tone of the scriptures that God does not merely "permit" these events, but that they serve some purpose in his divine plan. Ultimately, his glory. Sin, in and of itself, does not glorify God. However, as a result of man’s sin, God is glorified through the magnification of his justice, his wrath, his longsuffering, and his mercy. These are some of his most important traits that we would never see manifest if not for the entrance of sin into the world. The scriptures are also abundant with more general statements of God’s all-encompasing will and purpose: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." {Colossians 1:16-17}

"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 stand, and I will do all my pleasure." {Isaiah 46:9-10} "Lord, Thou wilt ordain peace for us; for Thou also hast wrought all our works in us." {Isaiah 26:12}

Indeed, the very surety of our predestination to salvation is grounded in the truth that God works all things after the counsel of His will: "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will." {Ephesians 1:11}

If the "all things" under consideration only extends to the predestination of his children to salvation, then Paul’s argument for the assurance of this fact is groundless and the verse should might have read something like...according to the purpose of Him who worketh these things after the counsel of His own will.

Also, chance is precluded even from events we would normally attribute to chance:

"The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD." {Proverbs 16:33} When it speaks in scripture of things occuring that are "of the Lord" this seems to signify that it was the Lord’s purpose and intention that it would come to pass. As shown above, this kind of language is even applied at times to events that involved the sinful actions of men, like waging of wars and Joseph being sent to Israel.

"Sovereignty" is a term that is not in scripture, yet the concept is abundant. Consider a king ruling over a kingdom. In this kingdom there are both good and bad, just and unjust, and it is the kings power and right to restrain the wicked and direct events of the kingdom. This is sovereignty. It is a king’s rule over his kingdom. When a man committs a crime, it is the king’s power to punish him, jail him, or restrain him in some other way. However, sometimes criminals can get away with things without being caught or punished or restrained.

Now, it is similar with God’s creation which he rules, except there are no limits to God’s ability to restrain wickedness, so that any wicked acts that occur can only occur through his permission. This permission is not in any way because God sees the act as good, but it is a permission in respect of his glory. For, as I have already noted, the entrance of sin helps to manifest God’s attributes, and also because it is God’s good purpose to create free, moral, rational beings. The consequence is the possibility of their disobedience.

There is a scripture that says somethings like...the wrath of man will praise you and the remainded of wrath thou wilt restrain.

God has full power and knowledge to intervene in the affairs and even in the hearts of men. The extent to which he does so is simply a matter of his own will and desire because he is limited by no other factor. Since God is not limited by time, I believe God determined from before time all that he would do, this includes just how much sin he would permit, among other things. Therefore, I believe in a sense that "all things" are fixed and sure and could be no other way than they are. For those who would take issue with this, I would counter that all events, good and evil, are as sure as God’s foreknowledge of them. Does this leave any room for them to be different than they are? I don’t think, however, that this undermines the idea of conditionality. How much sleep I get tonight is certainly conditional on when I finish writing this post. In seriousness, the workings of the universe and the mind of God are far too complex to reduce to a bleak, fatalistic system. Scripture and experience quickly tell us it isn’t Song of Solomon 547

{49} Is God the indirect cause of sin? I most definitely think not myself. If God is the indirect cause of sin, He is still involved with sin, right? We’d have to say that God is the creator of all things and that He made everything out of nothing but then He’d of necessity be the first, second, third, and umpteenth cause in creation. However, to lay to the charge of God that He created creatures as second causes of anything (especially sin) is to slam the charges right back to Him.

If He is the first CAUSE of anything then why is the blame put on the second cause?

God created everything that is and although He did not just wind up everything and turn it loose yet He is in no respect the CAUSE of everything, especially of sin- first or second/ direct or indirect. None of this in any way robs God of His sovereignty.