THE ONE WHO IS OPERATING ALL
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
"WHY, THEN, IS HE STILL BLAMING?"
IT IS a great advance in faith to truly accept the basic truth of
divine revelation that {all is of God}. Even so, while one may
{accept} that it is the teaching of Scripture that, ultimately
speaking, all is out of, through, and for God, one may still find
this teaching problematic or even troubling.
Such unrest and worrisomeness over questions of God's deity
is by no means surprising among members of our society, in which
the teaching of free will holds such a central place and is
considered to be the touchstone of righteousness. As the English
mathematician and philosopher Whitehead so astutely observed,
"Western peoples exhibit on a colossal scale a peculiarity which
is supposed to be more especially characteristic of the Chinese.
Surprise is often expressed that a Chinaman can be of two
religions, a Confucian for some occasions and a Buddhist for
other occasions....But there can be no doubt that an analogous
thought is true of the West, and that the two attitudes involved
are inconsistent. A scientific realism, based on mechanism, is
conjoined with an unwavering belief in the world of men and of
the higher animals as being composed of self-determining
organisms. This radical inconsistency at the basis of modern
thought accounts for much that is half-hearted and wavering in
our civilisation. It would be going too far to say that it
distracts thought. It enfeebles it, by reason of the
inconsistency lurking in the background." 1)
______
1. Alfred North Whitehead, SCIENCE AND THE MODERN WORLD, p.73
(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1925).
p164 Fleshly Pride and Confidence
If all is of God, however, it does indeed follow that the
popular notion of freewill responsibility is false. This is so
notwithstanding the fact that freewill responsibility is the
foundational assumption of western ethics and jurisprudence, even
as the implicit if not explicit dogma of the home, the church,
and the school.
Ironically, those who rail against the teaching of God's
deity, in so doing, only expose their own worldliness. They fail
to realize that the present state of one's conscience is not the
arbiter of truth, even as that societal mores are not decisive in
the determination of righteousness.
It is not difficult to see how, long ago, free will became
the morally-acceptable, societal norm, every way of a man seeming
right in his own eyes and the wish becoming the father of the
claim. The Latin saying, {Abeunt studia in mores}, sums it up
well: "Practices zealously pursued pass into habits."
There is nothing more characteristic of the flesh than its
desire to be independent of God; hence, its aversion to any
thought of divine determination and control in the affairs of
men. And, there is nothing more desirable to the flesh than the
maintenance of self-pride; hence, the repudiation of the teaching
of God's deity, since it leaves no room for self-pride.
It is often confidently claimed that the teaching that God
judges men for their acts even though their acts fulfill His
intention, "makes no sense," and is "unjust." In saying that this
teaching of God's deity makes no sense, the thought is that it is
absurd; and, in saying that it is unjust, the thought is that it
is contrary to morality.
Any such claims, however--which are the principal bulwarks
of free will--are purely subjective in nature, and can only be
true themselves, if free will itself, first of all, is true.
Obviously, if the teaching of free will is true, then the
teaching of God's deity which contradicts it, is absurd
p165 Whatever God does is Right
and unjust. But to assert, {a priori}, that the teaching of God's
deity is absurd and unjust--apart from having proved free will to
be true--is, at once, the moral failure of conceit as well as the
fallacy of circular reasoning. 2)
The fact that such invalid arguments are nonetheless so
persuasive and pervasive, and seem so upright to nearly all,
merely evinces the power of conceit and prejudice--as well as the
baneful, widespread effects of paucity of reasoning skills.
Let us not somehow feel "guilty" for believing that all is
of God (and that free will, therefore, is false). We should
instead recognize that the fact that to most people the denial of
free will seems deeply absurd and unjust, is not any indication
whatsoever that it {is} absurd and unjust.
Even if unwittingly, those who advocate free will nearly
always appeal to their own sense of rectitude concerning this
issue, implicitly equating that which {seems} right to them with
that which actually {is} right, in fact. Yet if we who deny free
will were to appeal to {our} own sense of rectitude concerning
this question, likewise implicitly equating that which seems
right to us with that which actually is right, our opposers,
quite properly, would not be slow to expose any such "appeals to
man."
Those who cannot wholeheartedly and unreservedly affirm that
whatever the Scriptures actually reveal is true, and whatever God
actually does is right, are disqualified even to approach this
issue concerning God's deity and the question of free will. Those
who claim that they would gladly believe that all is of God if
this were truly the scriptural teaching who at the same time
insist that this selfsame teaching is unreasonable and unjust,
expose their own hypocrisy.
______
2. Circular reasoning, or "begging the question" {petitio
principii}, occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly,
the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated.
p166 Foolish, Fleshly Protestations
Few there are who are not ready to join voices with Paul's
representative {protestor} of +Romans 9:19 in declaring, "Why,
then, is He still blaming? for who has withstood His intention?"
This protest is entered in response to the protestor's own
consideration of the preceding propositions made by the apostle:
(1) The children not of the flesh but of the promise are those
whom God reckons for the seed (+Rom.9:8); (2) The blessing of
Jacob instead of Esau was such that the purpose of God might be
remaining as His own choice, not out of acts (+Rom.9:11); (3) God
will be merciful to whomever He may be merciful and be pitying
whomever He may be pitying (+Rom.9:15); (4) Consequently, then,
it is not of him who is willing, nor of him who is racing, but of
God, the Merciful. For the scripture is saying to Pharaoh that,
"For this selfsame thing I rouse you up, so that I should be
displaying in you My power, and so that My name should be
published in the entire earth." Consequently, then, to whom He
will, He is merciful, {yet whom He will, He is hardening}
(+Rom.9:16-18).
It is at this juncture that the {protestor} rejoins (as Paul
puts it, "You will be {protesting} to me, then"): "{Why, then},
is He still blaming, for who has withstood His intention?"
It is vital to note that these words are not those of an
innocent inquirer, asking in faith, nothing doubting, but of a
vocal {protestor}, one who does not hesitate to drag the Deity
before the bar of his own justice.
The protestor is not actually asking a question at all, but
is instead entering a criticism. He is using a figure of speech,
termed Rhetorical Question, in which a question is asked merely
for effect, with no answer expected. The sense of the protestor's
rhetorical question is this: "{It is wrong, then}, for God to
blame Pharaoh [for example], since God Himself hardened his
heart, and, since his disobedience in which he resisted the
revealed will of God was the fulfillment of God's own intention."
p167 Metaphors of God's Deity
In replying, Paul answers this {protest} thus, by a
rhetorical question of his own in which he declares: 3)
"O man! {who are you}, to be sure, who are answering again
to God? That which {is} molded will not protest to the molder,
`Why do you make me thus?' Or has not the potter the right over
the clay, out of the same kneading to make one vessel, indeed,
for honor, yet one for dishonor" (+Rom.9:20,21)?
The protestor entirely ignores that it is {God} Who does
these things. No one has the right to be "answering back" to God;
by insinuation, effectually informing Him of what He must do if
He should wish to maintain His righteous character. O man! {who
are you}, to be sure, who are answering again to God?
Remarkably, in replying to his protestor, rather than
somehow "backing off" under the supposed weightiness of the
protestor's argument, Paul seeks instead to put him in his place
through the use of metaphors, ones which, far from constituting a
denial of God's deity, rather illustrate and confirm it. Paul has
gone to considerable lengths to show that the human is that which
{is} molded of God, and now only adds that it is not befitting
that which is molded to {protest} to the Molder, saying, "Why do
you make me thus?" (that is, "How dare you, God, if indeed You
are righteous, {make} me the way that I am?").
By speaking of the {right} of the potter over the clay, out
of the same kneading to make one vessel, indeed, for honor, yet
one for dishonor, Paul makes it clear that, among men, God has
the right--and is right in exercising that right--to make men
thus: some as "{vessels} of indignation, adapted for destruction"
(+Rom.9:22), and others, as "{vessels} of mercy,
______
3. The apostle does not herein directly respond to the literal
question which one might well ask who is simply seeking
enlightenment as to {why} it {is} so, in fact, that God
nonetheless "blames" those who fulfill His intention.
p168 God is Able to Enlighten
which He makes ready before for glory--us, whom He calls also,
not only out of the Jews, but out of the nations also"
(+Rom.9:23,24).
WISDOM AND GOODNESS IN JUDGING
In the preceding exposition, "Divine Foreknowledge and Its
Significance," I proved that the correct understanding of Paul's
words in +Romans 11:36, "seeing that out of Him and through Him
and for Him is all," is that all that exists and all that occurs,
except for God Himself, is out of, through, and for God.
Accordingly, I affirmed that since this truth precludes the
validity of the ethical notion termed "free will," free will
cannot be true. I also proved that since both determinism and
indeterminism or any combination of the two preclude free will,
free will is therefore not only a false notion but a notion
concerning which it is impossible to give any objective account
of how it might exist. Finally, in addressing the subject of
divine foreknowledge, I proved that the existence of God's
knowledge of those events of which the future consists, entails
the necessity of the consequence, namely that of the
inevitability of the events foreknown, which teaching also
precludes free will.
Now, at present, on behalf of those who have understood and
accepted those previous considerations, as well as that stressed
already in this present writing as to it being so that God {is}
righteous and wise in blaming men for their wrongdoing even
though their wrongdoing is according to His intention, the
following thoughts are set forth.
Only one who has come this far is in any position to go any
farther. This is because, logically, acceptance of truth precedes
understanding of truth. God, first of all, {informs} us of what
is true and what is right. It is only through His further
granting of wisdom and insight that the {wisdom} of truth and the
{rightness} of righteousness become more evident, and, more
explicable.
p169 Wisdom Granted for Realization
Those whose settled response to truth is to pass it by
unrecognized, since, to them, it is "absurd and unjust," seem
beyond human help. Still, we must remember that those who may
indeed be beyond our ability to convince, are by no means beyond
God's ability to enlighten. We may be assured that in God's own
time, all will come into a realization of truth, for it is the
will of the One Who is operating all in accord with the counsel
of His will that this should occur (cp +1 Tim.2:4; Eph.1:11).
Since even after we accept the truth that God nonetheless
judges those who, ultimately, are not responsible for their
actions, we may not see why this should be so, let us freely make
our requests known to God concerning this question. That is, let
us, then, prayerfully and reverently, in humility and
meekness--not at all in a spirit of protest and unbelief, but in
an attitude of faith and trust--simply {ask} our God and Father
to enlighten us as to why it is so--seeing that it {is} so--that
He "blames" His creatures for their wrongdoing, even though,
therein, they have fulfilled His intention.
Now, for some, it may be God's wisdom for them to remain in
such a spirit of confidence and trust for an extended period,
without His granting their request for understanding. If so,
however, this may become a most salutary experience in itself,
for how wonderful it is for us to grow simply in confidence and
trust in God, which, at least for a time, may be taught best in
the absence of the justification of truth instead of through its
presence.
I would say, however, that insofar as the Scripture
enlightens us on this issue and I myself am able to perceive, the
answer to our question here may be found in the answer to the
wider question, Why does evil exist? specifically, Why, in the
universe of the almighty and all-wise God, Who is love, does evil
exist? The answer to this question is that God is doing all
things well; that, specifically, in order that
p170 The Sinners Needs are Met
in God's Justice and His Love
His own glory as {Saviour} might be made known, and that His
creatures might enjoy the greater blessing of {deliverance} from
sin and evil than that of never having experienced these
maladies, God has wisely ordered that sin and evil should exist.
If Christ would become our Saviour, He must first be crucified.
Sin and evil, then, are indispensable to the greater, permanent
good. 4)
It is not casting any disagreeable reflections on the
Almighty to say He determined all things for good. Indeed, it is
glorious to learn not only that there is one God, the Father, out
of Whom all is, but that we are "for Him:" "There is one God, the
Father, out of Whom all is, {and we for Him}" (+1 Cor.8:6a). Why
are we here? For what purpose do we exist? The answer is, "for
God;" that is, for God Himself, even as for His purpose in which
we have a place. Just think of it: God actually has a {purpose}
for each one of us, that we should exist rather than not exist
and that His goal concerning us should be realized. Each one of
us, then, is important to God; and, lest His purpose concerning
any one of us should fail, He has ordered the universe in such a
way that all is out of Him and through Him; all, in the end,
being for Him as well.
To say that God "blames" us for our sins (even though
______
4. It is true that the measure of evil which exists will result
in greater glory and blessing than that which would have resulted
from a lesser measure of evil. It does not follow from this,
however, that a greater measure of evil ought to obtain than that
which, in fact, obtains. The will of God is not confined solely
to issues of ultimate glory and salvation. It encompasses His
present desires as well, including whatever present experiences
of life He wishes to grant to each one of His creatures. In kind
and degree, God gives humanity that particular "experience of
evil" (+Ecc.1:13; cf John 3:27) which accords with His wisdom and
desire. This is evident, for all that God desires, He does
(+Psa.115:3; cf Isa.46:9-11). God is not simply operating all,
but He is doing so according to the counsel of His own perfect
will. Therefore, all things considered, our world is the best of
all possible worlds.
p171 The sinners Needs are Met
in God's Justice and His Love
our sins are ultimately sourced in His counsels), is simply to
say that God {charges} us with wrongdoing where we have done
wrong. 5) As the Authorized Version has it, God "finds fault"
with us. Hence, since we thus {are} "at fault" (that is, simply
in the sense that we {have} done wrong), it should not be
surprising that God charges us accordingly.
It is true, however, that our {liability} for our
wrongdoing, is also hereby connoted, indeed, that it is entailed.
That is, it is true that we who have engaged in wrongdoing, are
not only charged therewith, but are also subject to whatever
consequences God deems appropriate for that selfsame wrongdoing.
Pragmatically, however, why should this surprise us? It is
simply a fact--however we came by our sinfulness--that, in so
many things, both our deeds and our motives {are} sinful;
frequently, they are very sinful. Those who are sinful both in
heart and hand, are sinful indeed, {and, are therefore in need of
judgment}. That is, the sinner is in a terrible way. He must not
be left to himself, simply to continue on in his refractoriness
interminably. Here it is not a question whether the sinner is
ultimately freewill-responsible for his own corrupt condition;
the vital consideration is simply that neither Justice nor Love
can ignore Sin.
It is true that our injustice serves God's purpose, in that
by way of contrast, it commends His own righteousness. It is not
true, however, that God--Who, through Christ, Who is the Emblem
of God's assumption (in this case, that of God's assumption of
"indignation;" +Heb.1:3)--is unjust in "bringing on indignation"
(that is, in subjecting the sinner to His own wisely contrived
indignation, notwithstanding the good purpose which man's
injustice serves; +Rom.3:5). Even as Paul declares, "May it not
be coming to that! Else
_______
5. Nothing concerning free will follows from this fact; hence no
such notion should be read into the text.
p172 The Discipline of Chastening
how shall God be judging the world" (+Rom.3:6)? That is, since
man's injustice serves God's {purpose} (and, it is true, is
purposed of Him), it must not be imagined that man is therefore
somehow to be exempted from judgment. Else (that is, If that were
true), it would be impossible for God to judge the world at all.
Therefore, the sinner--{for the glory of God as well as for
his own good, and certainly according to his own need}--is to be
subjected to God's own {justice}, which, like all of the divine
attributes, is in accord with the essence of God's nature, which
is {love} (+1 John 4:8). For the unbeliever, this will consist of
"{chastening} in the day of judging" (+2 Peter 2:9). "Chastening"
{kolasis} is judgment which, though it may entail penality, is
nonetheless imposed {with a view to amendment} (cf +Acts 4:21).
Aristotle distinguishes "chasten," which is {disciplinary} (cf
+Heb.12:7-13) and has reference to the one who suffers, from
"punish" {timooreoo}, which is inherently penal and has reference
to the satisfaction of the one who inflicts (cf KEYWORD
CONCORDANCE, entries "chasten" [p.47] and "punish" [p.236]).
Thus, through such considerations as these, we are learning
why God, Who is love, is "still blaming" men for their sins.
While their sins fulfill His present intention, they do so only
with a view to the realization of His ultimate goal, which is to
glorify His own name as Saviour, and to bless His creatures in
such a way that would be quite impossible apart from the
temporary presence of sin. O, the {depth} of the riches and the
{wisdom} and the knowledge of God (+Rom.11:33a)! How we marvel
and praise our God and Father in consideration of His operation
of all and His wisdom concerning all. Even as the Psalmist
declares, "Behold, You delight in truth even in the hidden parts,
and in the secret parts You cause me to know wisdom" (+Psa.51:6).
Hence we declare again, What a joy, and what a peace, in
believing (+Rom.15:13)! J.R.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment