The Gospel:
15 Ways to Cultivate a Gospel-Centered Church:
Spiritual Growth:
Elders and Congregationalism:
Raising Up Godly Leaders:
Cultivating a Culture of Discipling:
Pastor Transition in a Local Congregation:
John Calvin is widely considered to be one of the greatest theologians of the Reformation era. Many associate his name with doctrines such as the sovereignty of God, election, and predestination, but fewer are aware that he wrote extensively on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. The topic occupied many of his sermons, tracts, and theological treatises throughout his career. Calvin’s emphasis was not unusual. Among the many doctrines debated during the Reformation, the Lord’s Supper was discussed more than any other.
By the time Calvin became a prominent voice in the late 1530s, the Reformers had been debating the Lord’s Supper with Roman Catholics and with each other for years. In order to understand Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, it is necessary to understand the views he opposed. Throughout the later Middle Ages and up until the sixteenth century, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass was the received view in the Western church. Two aspects of the Roman Catholic doctrine require comment: Rome’s view of the Eucharistic presence and Rome’s view of the Eucharistic sacrifice.
According to Rome, Christ’s presence in the sacrament is to be explained in terms of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The doctrine of transubstantiation asserts that when the priest says the words of consecration, the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. The accidens (that is, the incidental properties) of the bread and wine remain the same. Rome also teaches that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice; in fact, the same sacrifice Christ offered on the cross. The Eucharistic sacrifice is offered for the sins of the living and the dead.
The Reformers were united in their rejection of both aspects of Rome’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. They rejected transubstantiation, and they rejected the idea that the Lord’s Supper is a propitiatory sacrifice. In his book The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), Martin Luther attacked both of these doctrines. Also opposed to Rome’s doctrine was the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli. However, although Luther and Zwingli agreed in their rejection of Rome’s doctrine, they were not able to come to agreement on the true nature of the Lord’s Supper.
Zwingli argued that Christ’s words “This is my body” should be read, “This signifies my body.” He claimed that the Lord’s Supper is a symbolic memorial, an initiatory ceremony in which the believer pledges that he is a Christian and proclaims that he has been reconciled to God through Christ’s shed blood. Martin Luther adamantly rejected Zwingli’s doctrine, insisting that Christ’s words “This is my body” must be taken in their plain, literal sense.
Martin Luther argued that although Rome’s explanation of Christ’s true presence in the Lord’s Supper was wrong, the fact of Christ’s true presence was correct. He offered a different explanation for the presence of Christ. In order to understand his view, however, a brief explanation of some rather obscure theological terminology is required. Medieval scholastic theologians had distinguished various modes of presence, or ways of being present. They used the term local presence to describe the way in which physical, finite things are present in a circumscribed place. Spiritual presence described the way in which spiritual beings (such as angels, souls, or God) are present. Because this term was somewhat vague, other terms were used in order to be more specific. Illocal presence, for example, described the way in which finite spiritual beings (for example, human souls or angels) are present, while repletive presence described the way in which an infinite spiritual being (God) is present.
Zwingli argued that the only mode of presence proper to the human body of Christ was “local presence.” Therefore, according to Zwingli, Christ’s body is locally present in heaven and nowhere else until the Second Advent. Luther rejected Zwingli’s view, claiming that other modes of presence were proper to Christ’s human body — specifically the illocal mode of presence. Because Christ’s body can be present in an illocal manner, according to Luther, it can be present in the bread of the Lord’s Supper. In his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528), Luther argues that there is a “sacramental union” between the substance of Christ’s body and the bread resulting in a new and unique substance that Luther refers to as fleischbrot (“flesh-bread”). Thus, according to Luther, Christ’s human body is present in the Lord’s Supper supernaturally in a real and illocal manner.
Calvin’s first significant contribution to the subject appeared in the 1536 edition of his Institutes, by which time the battle lines had already been drawn. He continued to progressively clarify and explain his doctrine of the Supper over the next two decades. Calvin’s doctrine of the Supper was very much influenced by Luther, but others were just as instrumental in shaping his approach to the subject. Among those whose influence is discernible are Augustine, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Peter Martyr Vermigli.
Calvin followed Augustine in defining a sacrament as “a visible sign of a sacred thing” or as a “visible word” of God. The sacraments, according to Calvin, are inseparably attached to the Word. The sacraments seal the promises found in the Word. In regard to the Lord’s Supper, more specifically, it is given to seal the promise that those who partake of the bread and wine in faith truly partake of the body and blood of Christ. Calvin explains this in terms of the believer’s mystical union with Christ. Just as baptism is connected with the believer’s initiation into union with Christ, the Lord’s Supper strengthens the believer’s ongoing union with Christ.
All of this raises a question. How does Calvin understand the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper? According to Calvin the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols (for example, Zwingli). But he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into the things they signify (for example, Rome). Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, “This is my body,” the name of the thing signified (“body”) is applied to the sign (the bread).
Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believer’s union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on the spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.
This, of course, raises a second question regarding the mode by which believers partake of the body and blood of Christ. Zwingli had argued that to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ was simply a synonym for believing in Christ. Calvin begged to differ. He argued that the eating of the body of Christ is not equivalent to faith; instead, it is the result of faith. Calvin often used the term “spiritual eating” to describe the mode by which believers partake, but he is careful to define what he means. He asserts repeatedly that “spiritual eating” does not mean that believers partake only of Christ’s spirit. “Spiritual eating” means, according to Calvin, that by faith believers partake of the body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit who pours the life of Christ into them.
Calvin also rejected the idea that we partake of the body and blood of Christ with the mouth. Not only Rome, but Luther and his followers, asserted the doctrine of oral manducation (that is, oral eating). According to the Lutherans, the body of Christ is orally eaten, but it is a supernatural or hyperphysical eating rather than a natural or physical eating. Both believers and unbelievers receive the body of Christ according to the Lutherans, although unbelievers receive it to their own judgment. Calvin denied that unbelievers receive the body of Christ at all. According to Calvin, the body and blood of Christ are objectively offered to all, but only received by believers.
According to Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is also “a bond of love” intended to produce mutual love among believers. It is to inspire thanksgiving and gratitude. Because it is at the very heart of Christian worship, Calvin argued that it should be observed whenever the Word is preached, or “at least once a week.” It should be shorn of all superstition and observed in its biblical simplicity. Calvin considered the Lord’s Supper to be a divine gift given by Christ himself to His people to nourish and strengthen their faith. As such, it is not to be neglected, but rather celebrated often and with joy.
Michael Riccardi is a faculty associate in the theology department at The Master’s Seminary. He is also the pastor of local outreach ministries and pastors the GraceLife fellowship group at Grace Community Church.
Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and need Your forgiveness. I believe that You died for my sins. I want to turn from my sins. I now invite You to come into my heart and life. I want to trust and follow You as Lord and Savior.
In Jesus’ name.
Amen.
I think many of us, at some point in our lives, have prayed a prayer similar to this. Maybe some of us have led others in a prayer like this. But can we actually have the confidence to base our eternity on repeating these words after our mom, dad, or youth leader? As leaders or parents, should we be assuring others of their eternal salvation merely because they recite these words?
Put simply, what are we to think of the sinner’s prayer?
We must understand several things:
FIRST, THE ACT OF PRAYER IN AND OF ITSELF DOES NOT SAVE.
Proponents of the sinner’s prayer often state that by simply praying this prayer, you can have full assurance of immediate and eternal salvation. Indeed, to doubt your salvation after praying this prayer is portrayed to be wicked unbelief in the promises of God. However, Scripture never identifies prayer as the means of either our justification or our assurance.
Any experience—no matter how well-worded or emotion-filled—that does not result in the grace-empowered production of fruit is not genuine salvation.
In the New Testament, we see people who are saved without praying (e.g., Luke 23:39–43; Acts 10:34–48), and we also see those who pray and yet are not saved (Matt 7:21–23; Luke 18:11–12). Throughout the Bible, it is made clear that prayer is not the switch that activates salvation. Faith alone is the means of our justification. Salvation occurs the moment someone turns from his or her sin and places their hope for salvation in Christ. This is accomplished solely by the empowering of the Holy Spirit, and it is based upon the finished work of Christ. A repentant person must understand that the basis for salvation is repentant faith in Christ alone.
This is not to say sinners should not pray. True repentant faith will express itself to God in prayer. The tax collector of Luke 18:13prayed, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” and Jesus says he went to his house justified (Luke 18:14). Significantly, though, it was in the total abandonment of any works—including prayers—that brought salvation to this man.
SECOND, WE CANNOT ASSURE SOMEONE OF THEIR SALVATION.
Salvation is not the result of external actions (1 Sam 16:7). So, if we assure someone of their salvation merely on the basis of a verbal commitment, we may bring great confusion into the life of that person when fruit does not appear and sustained victory over sin never comes.
Jesus tells a parable with this very point in mind. In the parable of the soils, Jesus illustrates that we cannot know the condition of a person’s heart solely by their initial response to the gospel, but only by the fruit that marks their life (Mark 4:1–20).
THIRD, WE CAN ASSURE SOMEONE THAT IF THEY REPENT, CHRIST WILL SAVE THEM.
What we can—and must—assure people of is that if they genuinely repent of their sins and trust in Christ, He will in no way cast them out (John 6:37). But how can someone know if he has truly repented?
A new believer must look to Scripture to evaluate his salvation. If he fails to do this, then he will continue to look back to an external action—like coming forward at a meeting or praying the sinner’s prayer—as the verification of his salvation.
Assurance comes from comparing the life of the one who has repented to the Scripture in the following areas:
Patterns of Obedience
The life of the true believer will be marked by patterns of obedience. As he grows in love for God, he will grow in obedience to the commandments of God (cf. John 14:15, 23; 1 John 2:3–6; 5:3). A true believer will also have continued and sustained faith in the promises of God (1 John 3:23; 1 Thess 2:13).
The Fruit of the Spirit
As a believer applies the Scriptures and grows in Christ-likeness, the Holy Spirit produces within him “fruits in keeping with repentance” (cf. Luke 3:8; Gal 5:22–23). These steps may be small at first, and may be slowed by sin, but sanctification will never completely stall (Phil 2:13; 1 Thess 5:23–24). The attitudes and actions of believers will even change and mature as they grow in Christlikeness.
This is illustrated by Jesus’ remarks that a good tree will bear good fruit (Matt 7:17). Any experience—no matter how well-worded or emotion-filled—that does not result in the grace-empowered production of fruit is not genuine salvation.
The Ministry of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit takes up residence in every believer and is actively involved in sanctification. By His very presence, He comforts, convicts, and gives resolute confidence that we are indeed children of God (cf. Rom 8:16; 1 John 3:24).
ALTERNATIVES TO THE SINNER’S PRAYER
So what do we do then?
As you end an interaction with someone who has responded positively to the gospel, you should seek to do so in a way that does not give false assurance but, at the same time, does not cast unnecessary suspicion on their profession.
If not the sinner’s prayer, what should you do? Here are several alternatives.
Pray for them yourself.
Often, the best thing to do at the end of an evangelistic encounter is just to pray for the person yourself. It’s not merely a formality; you’re genuinely asking God to send His Spirit to use the power of His Word to quicken a dead heart.
Even if someone is truly converted, they likely don’t know how to pray. Your praying with them begins to teach them how.
Ask them to pray in their own words.
If the person you’re evangelizing does express a desire to pray along with you, better than a “repeat-after-me” prayer is just to let them pray to God on their own. You’ve likely covered a lot of ground in your gospel presentation, and this can serve as a helpful gauge of their understanding of the gospel and its implications.
Exhort them to make their calling and election sure.
Rather than making them feel like you are suspicious of their desire to repent and believe, be sure to explain what it means to “count the cost” of following Christ (Luke 14:25–33). Then, as Peter says, exhort them to make their calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10). Call them to confirm what God has done today by bearing fruits in keeping with repentance (Luke 3:8). By putting it this way, you frame the issue positively while still emphasizing their responsibility to walk in faithfulness.
Follow up with the beginnings of discipleship.
If they live reasonably close to your local church, invite them as your guest. You might also invite them to your house for dinner, coffee, and dessert. Perhaps there is another way to follow up with them that makes more sense in your context. The important thing is to be available to follow up with them and to introduce them to a sound local church.
From the archives: Here (below) is a series of one hour teachings on the Doctrines of Grace (also known by the acrostic T.U.L.I.P.) I did some time back on Dr. James White’s Dividing Line broadcasts. Since their release back in 2014, I have received a lot of encouraging feedback as to how these teachings have impacted people to understand and appreciate God’s grace in salvation more fully.
1: The “T” in the TULIP, “TOTAL DEPRAVITY”:
2. The “U” in the TULIP, “UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION”
3. The “L” in the TULIP, “LIMITED ATONEMENT”
4: The “I” in the TULIP, “IRRESISTIBLE GRACE”
5: The conclusion of the TULIP series – “THE PERSEVERANCE (PRESERVATION) OF THE SAINTS”:
One important aspect of biblical hermeneutics (the theory of biblical interpretation) is the principle of “New Testament priority.” At the beginning of the Middle Ages, Augustine of Hippo (354-430) expressed New Testament priority with the phrase, “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.” Augustine meant that the Old Testament contains shadowy types and figures that are only clearly revealed in the New Testament. In other words, the New Testament explains the Old Testament. The Protestant Reformers and Puritans also looked to the New Testament to govern their interpretation of the Old. An early confessional Particular Baptist, Nehemiah Coxe, agreed with the Reformed interpretive principle when he wrote, “…the best interpreter of the Old Testament is the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the new.” [1]
The interpretive principle of New Testament priority is derived from an examination of the Scriptures themselves. As we read the Bible, we notice that earlier texts never explicitly interpret later texts. Earlier texts provide the interpretive context for later texts, but earlier texts never cite later texts and explain them directly. Rather, what we find is that later texts make explicit reference to earlier texts and provide explanations of them. Moreover, the later portion of any book always makes clear the earlier portion. When you just begin to read a novel, for example, you’re still learning the characters, the setting, the context, etc., but later on, as the story progresses, things that happened earlier in the book make more sense and take on new meaning. Mysteries are resolved. Earlier conversations between characters gain new significance as the novel unfolds. Later parts of the story have primary explanatory power over the earlier parts.
The hermeneutical principle of New Testament priority simply recognizes these facts. Following the Bible’s own example, interpreters should allow later revelation in the Bible to explain earlier revelation, rather than insisting on their own uninspired interpretations of earlier revelation without reference to the authoritative explanations of later revelation.
A Response to John MacArthur’s Opposition to New Testament Priority
Over and against New Testament priority, John MacArthur claims that to make “the New Testament the final authority on the Old Testament denies the perspicuity of the Old Testament as a perfect revelation in itself.” [2] Of course, MacArthur’s claim is easily reversed. One might argue that to suggest that the New Testament is not the final authority on the Old Testament denies the perspicuity (which means “clarity”) of the New Testament as perfect revelation in itself. Moreover, MacArthur doesn’t account for the fact that the Old Testament teaches that its own prophecies can be hard to understand because they are given in riddles (Numbers 12:6-8). The New Testament too acknowledges that the Old Testament is not always clear. It tells us of “mysteries” in the Old Testament yet to be revealed (Colossians 1:26). The meaning of the Old Testament “shadows” (Hebrews 10:1) and “types” (Galatians 4:24) only become clear after Christ comes. Historic Baptists understood this. The Second London Baptist Confession 1.7 accurately declares, “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves.” That is, all of Scripture is not equally perspicuous, contrary to John MacArthur. Thus, MacArthur’s critique of New Testament priority is not consistent with what the Bible teaches about the Old Testament’s “shadowy” character. [3]
New Testament Priority: Dispensationalism and Paedobaptism
To illustrate how this principle of New Testament priority effects our theology, consider the example of Dispensationalists and Paedobaptists. Both Dispensationalists and Paedobaptists wrongly allow the Old Testament to have priority over the New Testament. Both systems of interpretation read the promise of a seed in Genesis 17:7 as a promise of a large number of physical offspring from Abraham. In Genesis 17:7, God says, “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you.”
Dispensationalists think Genesis 17:7 establishes an everlasting promise to national Israel, and they read their interpretation into the New Testament, convinced that God has future plans for national Israel. Paedobaptists, on the other hand, think the promise in Genesis 17:7 is the covenant of grace with Abraham and all his physical children, which leads to the baptism of infants in the New Testament and to churches intentionally mixed with believers and unbelievers. [4]
If, however, we allow the New Testament to interpret Genesis 17:7, then we will avoid the error committed by Dispensationalism and Paedobaptism. Galatians 3:16 says, “Now the promises were made to Abraham and his offspring. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ.” Note well that Galatians 3:16 explicitly denies a plural offspring. The promise is to one Offspring only, not to many. “It does not say ‘And to offsprings’” (Galatians 3:16).
Therefore, in light of the clear teaching of the New Testament, we must conclude that both Dispensationalists and Paedobaptists misinterpret the Old Testament because they fail to allow the New Testament to have priority of interpretation. Both systems conclude that the promise to Abraham’s seed is a promise to physical descendants, rather than to Christ. This error leads Paedobaptists to over-emphasize a visible church propagated by natural generation in their reading of Scripture, and it leads Dispensationalists to over-emphasize Israel, when the New Testament clearly teaches us to emphasize Christ. The promise to “seed” is a promise to Christ, not to men. [5] This is not a denial of any collective aspect to seed; rather, it recognizes that the seed is Christ and that by saving union with Him, the elect are also seed in Him (Galatians 3:7, 14, 29). Thus, all the promises made to Abraham in Genesis 17:7 were made to Christ and to all who are savingly united to Him, Jew and Gentile alike. The promise is, therefore, Christ-centered, not man-centered, which is what historic Baptists have always taught.
1. Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen, Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ, ed. Ronald D. Miller, James M. Renihan, and Fransisco Orozco (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005), 36.
2. John MacArthur, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist,” a sermon delivered at the Shepherd’s Conference in 2007.
3. For an extensive treatment of John MacArthur’s dispensationalism, see Samuel E. Waldron, MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response (Owensboro, KY: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2008). For a short critique of Dispensationalism’s hermeneutic in general, see Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), 33-40.
4. For an excellent critique of Reformed paedobaptism, see Fred A. Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism (Cape Coral, FL: Founders, 2003, revised and expanded, 2007).
5. To see this argument worked out more thoroughly, see Fred A. Malone, “Biblical Hermeneutics & Covenant Theology” in Covenant Theology: A Baptist Distinctive, ed. Earl M. Blackburn (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2013), 63-87.
In
numerous passages throughout the Bible, there are places where Scripture speaks
of God’s “purpose” (Acts 4:28),
His “plan” (Ps 33:11; Acts 2:23), His “counsel”
(Eph 1:11), “good pleasure”
(Isa 46:10), or “will” (Eph 1:5). In one way or
another, each of these designations refer to what theologians call God’s
decree. The Westminster Confession famously characterizes describes God’s
decree as follows: “God from all eternity, did, by the most
wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain
whatsoever comes to pass.”
So in
those instances where Scripture speaks of God’s purpose, plan, counsel,
pleasure, or will, these passages are referring to the divine decree by which
God, before the creation of time, determined to bring about all things that
were to happen in time. John Piper, summarizing God’s decree, says, “He has
designed from all eternity, and is infallibly forming, with every event, a
magnificent mosaic of redemptive history” (Desiring God, 40). This
helpful summary presents three characteristics of God’s decree that succinctly
encapsulate the teaching of Scripture: God’s decree is eternal, immutable, and
exhaustive.
God’s
Decree is Eternal and Unconditional
First,
Scripture presents God’s decree as having been determined before the creation
of time, and thus it is said to be eternal.
David praises God because all his days were ordained and written
in God’s book before any one of them came to pass (Ps 139:16).
God’s election of individuals to salvation is said to have
occurred “before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4; cf. Matt 25:34; 2 Tim 1:9).
Paul also says that the plan of salvation of the Gentiles was in
accordance with God’s eternal purpose (Eph 3:11), which mystery
was “predestined before the ages” (1 Cor 2:7).
In Isaiah 46:10,
Yahweh asserts that He will accomplish all His good pleasure and establish all
things according to His purpose.
Paul makes a similar statement in Ephesians 1:11 when
he states that believers have been “predestined according to His purpose who
works all things after the counsel of His will.”
What
these passages are teaching us is that all of God’s providential actions in
time conform to a fixed purpose which precedes time. And this “fixed purpose”
is none other than God’s eternal decree.
A very
important implication of the eternality of God’s decree is that it is entirely
unconditional. That is to say, nothing external to God moved Him to decide to
do one thing as opposed to another thing. Edwards said, “His will is supreme,
underived, and independent on any thing without himself; being in every thing
determined by His own counsel, having no other rule but his own wisdom.” In
fact, not only is that not the case: it’s impossible.
Because God, who is the only self-existent, eternal Being, was the only entity
present in eternity past (Col 1:17).
To put it simply, God’s decree wasn’t influenced by anything external to Him
because there was nothing external to Him (Gen 1:1; John 1:1–3).
The consequence
of this reality is that every one of God’s decisions that make up His
decree—down to the minutest of events and actions—was an entirely free decision
according to His own will. This is why Scripture so often refers to God’s
decree as His “good pleasure,” or that which pleases Him (Ps 115:3; 135:6; Isa 46:10; 48:14; Phil 2:13). So far from
teaching that any part of God’s decree was based on an external influence,
Scripture proclaims: “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as
nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of
heaven” (Dan 4:35).
God’s
Decree is Immutable
“OK. So
maybe God’s decree is unconditional because it was formed in eternity past. But
what if the decree could be changed now that we’re in time? After all, God can
do what He wants, right? You wouldn’t dare put God in a box,
now would you?”
To such
an objection (one that is unfortunately all too common), Scripture replies that
God’s decree is not only eternal and thus unconditional, but also unchangeable.
Rather than the possibility of a creature altering God’s decree,
the psalmist declares that it is God who nullifies the creature’s counsel, even
frustrating the plans of peoples (Ps 33:10).
The next verse cements that reality: “The counsel of Yahweh
stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation” (Ps 33:11).
Daniel 4:35 declares that
“no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’”
In a similar fashion, God Himself tauntingly asks, “For Yahweh
of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out
hand, who can turn it back?” (Isa 14:27).
And after receiving what is perhaps the most scathing, forceful
rebuke in all of Scripture, Job simply summarizes the immutability of God’s
decree when he says, “I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of
Yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2).
God’s
Decree is Exhaustive
Finally,
God’s eternal and immutable decree is also exhaustive. God is said to
work all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). The
psalmist repeats that the Lord does whatever He pleases (Ps 115:3; 135:6). He Himself
declares that He will accomplish all His good pleasure (Isa 46:10).
However,
such exhaustiveness is not merely a general control; rather, God’s control over
creation is specific and meticulous. In his Systematic Theology,
Wayne Grudem provides a helpful survey (318–21).
It is His will that determines the deaths of even the smallest
of birds (Matt 10:29).
He determines the boundaries of nations (Acts 17:26) and rules over
them (Ps 22:28)
And not only does He remove and establish kings (Dan 2:21), but He even
turns their hearts wherever He wishes (Prov 21:1).
Even those events which seem random are determined by God (Prov 16:33).
Neither do the events of our personal lives escape God’s
sovereign foreordaining, for He supplies our every need (Phil 4:19; Jas 1:17), determines the
length of our lives (Ps 139:16; Job 14:5), and even
directs our individual steps (Prov 16:9; Jer 10:23).
Perhaps
the greatest summary statement comes in Paul’s great doxology in Romans 11:36: “For from Him
and through Him and to Him are all things.”
Conclusion:
God is the Ultimate Cause
In
light of the Scriptural teaching concerning God’s decree—(a) that it is
eternal, and thus uninfluenced by anything external to God, (b) that it is
unchangeable and cannot be frustrated, and (c) that it includes absolutely
everything that occurs in time and space and beyond—the only reasonable
conclusion for the student of Scripture to come to is that God may be properly
said to be the ultimate cause of all things. As John Frame says, reflecting on
the Biblical evidence, “Through the centuries of redemptive history, everything has
come from God. He has planned and done it all. He has not merely set boundaries
for creaturely action, but has actually made everything happen” (Doctrine of
God, 58).
The
exhaustiveness and meticulousness of God’s sovereign decree raises a
significant question: How can God be the cause of actions and events that are
evil and sinful—things which God Himself prescribes against—and yet not be
rightly charged with unrighteousness? That’s a question that needs to be
answered, and we’ll take a look at it in a future post. But for now, let us at
least acknowledge that, based on the biblical doctrine of God’s decree
summarized above, Scripture gives us no other option but that God is indeed the
Sovereign Lord who works all things after the counsel of His
will (Eph 1:11).
God
Meant it for Good: Evaluating Divine Permission
In
my last post,
I outlined some foundational biblical/theological teaching on the decree of
God. We looked at passages of Scripture that speak of God’s decree as eternal,
unconditional, unchangeable, and exhaustive. As a result, we concluded that God
is properly said to be the ultimate cause of all things.
Immediately,
this raises the question: How can God be the cause of actions and events that
are evil and sinful—things which God Himself prescribes against—and yet not be
rightly charged with unrighteousness? Some people answer this question by
appealing to the notion of divine “permission.” In other words, though God is
ultimately in control, He doesn’t ordain evil; He merely allows it.
I don’t find this kind of explanation convincing for two reasons.
God’s
Decree and Divine “Permission”
The
first is: I find the concept of divine permission to be inconsistent with the
biblical teaching of God’s decree outlined in the previous post. The
fundamental meaning of “permission” is “not to hinder what has, or appears to
have, a tendency to take place” (Edwards, Concerning the Divine Decrees).
The concept of permission is used this way in Scripture (e.g., Mark 10:14), and
even the etymology of
the English word testifies that it has the idea of “to allow to pass through.”
In fact, Arminian theologians treat the concept of permission according to its
actual definition. Jack Cottrell, an Arminian, puts it this way: “God simply
allows these agents to produce what they will. This is true permission, i.e.,
not efficaciousness but noninterference.” Cottrell is actually using the
concept of permission according to its true sense: a response to a future plan
or intention known in advance.
But the
idea of noninterference, or not hindering what has a tendency to take place,
makes no sense in light of God’s eternal and unconditional decree, because in
eternity past at the moment of God’s decree there was nothing
external to Him. There was no antecedent tendency for anything, no agent on a
trajectory asking permission to pass through to its desired end. In eternity
past, there wasn’t any evil agent that made an appeal to the divine will to be
included in His decree, at which point God, though recognizing it was contrary
to His nature, nevertheless granted permission. To put it simply, there was
nothing for God to refrain from interfering with, nothing outside of Himself to
which to “acquiesce,” as one theologian put it. Indeed, as Gordon Clark says,
The idea of permission
is possible only where there is an independent force. . . . But this is not the
situation in the case of the God of the universe. Nothing in the universe can
be independent of the Omnipotent Creator, for in him we live and move and have
our being. Therefore, the idea of permission makes no sense when applied to
God. (Religion Reason, and Revelation [P&R, 1961], 205)
Such
reasoning has led many to conclude that the distinction between a permissive
will and a decretive will is “desperately artificial” (Carson, Divine
Sovereignty and Human Responsibility [Wipf & Stock, 2002], 214).
At the very least, those who hold to a Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty
have no desire to communicate what’s actually implied by the use of permissive
language (as outlined above). In fact, John Frame goes so far as to say, “we
should not assume . . . that divine permission is anything less than sovereign
ordination” (Doctrine of God, 178). And I agree. But if we don’t intend
to communicate what is actually denoted by “permission,” yet we do intend to
communicate nothing less than sovereign ordination, of what meaningful use is
permissive language? Why not simply speak of God’s “ordaining” or “decreeing”
or “bringing about” all things?
Biblical
Examples of God’s Agency in Evil
Well,
the answer to that is because it seems to suggest that God is somehow the
author of sin, and thus the chargeable cause of evil. We want to avoid speaking
of God’s involvement in ordaining evil or sinful events, because we don’t want
people to think that we’re saying sin is God’s fault. And of course, that is a
noble desire. But I don’t think that permissive language accomplishes that end,
because Scripture itself doesn’t mind speaking of God’s agency in evil in very
active terms.
In
fact, Scripture plainly teaches both (a) that God is
unquestionably righteous and (b) that He indeed ordains sinful events and
actions. And if that’s what Scripture teaches (and it is), it is not our place
to sit in judgment upon and question the consistency of those declarations.
Rather it falls to us to receive both as true on the authority
of God’s infallible and inerrant Word. That brings me to my second reason for
rejecting the concept of divine permission: Scripture.
Consider
the overwhelming amount of Scripture that speaks of God’s role in bringing
about evil in ways much more positively and actively than we are often
comfortable with.
In
Amos’s prophecy of punishment to Israel, God asks, “If a calamity occurs in a
city has not Yahweh done it?” (Amos 3:6).
He does not ask who has allowed the calamity, but who has
actively done it (Heb. ‘assah).
Similarly,
after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, in his lamentations
Jeremiah nevertheless understands from whom such destruction comes. He asks,
“Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it
(Heb. tsawah)? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both
good and ill (ra‘ah & tov) go forth?” (Lam 3:37–38).
Indeed,
it’s worth noting the active language used throughout the entire book of
Lamentations: God has “caused [Judah] grief” (1:5), “inflicted” this pain
(1:12); knit together this yoke and given her into the hands of her enemies
(1:14); and trodden her as in a winepress (1:15). God is actively accomplishing
that which He had purposed to do (2:17; 3:43–44; 4:11).
In
Isaiah’s prophecy, God declares that it is He who forms light and creates
darkness, and it is He who brings about peace and creates calamity (Isa 45:5–7;
Heb. bara’ ra‘; literally, “creates evil”). Such statements do not
discriminate. God does not distance Himself from evil in distinction to good;
rather, He sharply makes the point that He is the one, and not
another, who accomplishes (bara’)—and not merely
permits—all things (Isa 45:7).
This
kind of language that speaks of God’s active involvement is not limited to
general evils. His positive agency in sin and evil extends to personal
situations.
Perhaps
the classic illustration for this is the story of Joseph. Some theologians
actually appeal to God’s dealings with Joseph to support permissive language,
saying that God “permits some sins to occur [but] nonetheless directs them in
such a way that good comes out of them” (Erickson, 425). But this plainly
misses the mark of the text. The narrative makes plain that God didn’t just
make the best out of a bad situation, as if Joseph had merely said, “You meant
evil against me, but God worked it out for good.” You know,
Joseph’s brothers had dealt God a rather bad hand, but He did with it what He
could and worked it out for good. No, the text says that God meant it
for good (Gen 50:20).
God’s intentions in Joseph being unjustly sold into slavery were just as active
as Joseph’s brothers’ were. He was as sovereignly involved on the front end of
Joseph’s trials as He was on the back end of his prosperity. In fact, the text
says that God actively sent Joseph to Egypt with His own
purpose to preserve life (Gen 45:5, 7). Joseph even says that
it is not his brothers who sent him there, but God (Gen 45:8). Neither the
language nor the idea of permission is anywhere to be found in this narrative.
Other
examples can be multiplied:
The
obstinacy and disobedience of Eli’s sons is attributed to God’s desire to put
them to death. 1 Samuel 2:25 says,
“But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for Yahweh desired to
put them to death.” Scripture causally links Hophni’s and Phineas’ disobedience
to God’s desire to put them to death. As difficult as it is for our theology,
Scripture seems to inescapably declare that God ordained their disobedience in
order that He might justly carry out a death sentence upon
them.
Later,
Yahweh sends an evil spirit upon Saul to torment him. 1 Samuel 16:14 says,
“Now the Spirit of Yahweh departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from Yahweh
terrorized him.” An evil spirit. From Yahweh.
It blows my theological circuits too, but it’s in the text. It’s not an option
for me to accuse the author of 1 Samuel of making God to be the author of sin!
Though
Absalom’s incest is an abomination before Yahweh (2 Sam 16:21–23),
Yahweh Himself had already declared to David that He will
bring such abominations about as punishment for David’s sin: “Thus says Yahweh,
‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own
household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and
give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before
all Israel, and under the sun’” (2 Sam 12:11–12).
Paul
tells us that in the great eschatological apostasy, “God will send
upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false” (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
And of
course, the chief of these examples is God’s agency in the greatest of all
evils: the crucifixion of Christ. Can anyone dispute that the sham trial,
unjust condemnation, and murder of the innocent Son of God was the greatest
evil ever accomplished in history? And yet, the Apostle Peter says Christ was
“delivered over by the predetermined plan . . . of God” (Acts 2:23). And again:
“For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant
Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the
Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand
and Your purpose predestined to occur” (Acts 4:27–28).
There can be no more explicit affirmation of God’s sovereign ordination and of
the cross—the greatest evil in history.
Considering
the weight of this Scriptural testimony, we must conclude along with Calvin:
The modesty of
those who are thus alarmed at the appearance of absurdity might perhaps be
excused, did they not endeavour to vindicate the justice of God from every
semblance of stigma by defending an untruth. . . . Recourse is had to the
evasion that [evil] is done only by the permission, and not also by the will of
God. He himself, however, openly declaring that he does this,
repudiates the evasion. (Institutes, I.18.1)
And
with Frame:
God does bring
about sinful human actions. To deny this, or to charge God with wickedness on
account of it, is not open to a Bible-believing Christian. Somehow, we must
confess both that God has a role in bringing evil about, and that in doing so
he is holy and blameless. (Doctrine of God, 175)
And we
don’t need permissive language to make this confession.
But is
there any way to understand how it can be that God is not the
chargeable cause of sin, even though He ordains that it be? I’ll try to address
that in the next post.
God
and Evil: Why the Ultimate Cause is not the Chargeable Cause
Several
weeks ago, I began a series of posts by outlining some foundational biblical
teaching about God’s decree.
We examined numerous passages of Scripture that speak of God’s decree as
eternal, unconditional, unchangeable, and exhaustive. As a result, we concluded
that God is properly said to be the ultimate cause of all things. As the
Westminster Confession states, “God from all eternity, did, by the
most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably
ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (WCF, 3.1).
Whenever
you say something like that in a theological discussion, immediately the
question is raised: How can God be the ultimate cause of whatsoever comes
to pass—even actions and events that are evil and sinful, things which God
Himself prescribes against—and yet not be rightly charged with unrighteousness.
Perhaps the most common answer to that question is an appeal to the notion of
divine “permission.” In other words, though God is ultimately in control, He
doesn’t ordain evil; He merely allows it. In a second post,
I demonstrated why such a solution is unsatisfactory, both theologically and
biblically. After considering a number of passages that don’t shy away from
attributing to God a very active role in the bringing about of evil events, we
concluded with John Frame: “God does bring about sinful human actions. To deny
this, or to charge God with wickedness on account of it, is not open to a
Bible-believing Christian. Somehow, we must confess both that God has a role in
bringing evil about, and that in doing so he is holy and blameless” (Doctrine
of God). That post demonstrated that Scripture plainly teaches both (a)
that God is unquestionably righteous and (b) that He indeed ordains sinful
events and actions. And if that’s what Scripture teaches (and it is), it is not
our place to sit in judgment upon and question the consistency of those
declarations. That only breeds the worst of biblical and theological mischief.
To argue that God is unrighteous for ordaining evil is to sit in judgment upon
both the Word of God and the Judge of all the world. Instead, it falls to us to
receive both propositions as true on the authority of God’s
infallible and inerrant Word.
But is
there any way to understand how it can be that God is not the
chargeable cause of sin, even though He ordains that it be? There is a way for
the worshiper of God to ask that question submissively, not because we demand
that God give an account of His understanding of justice that satisfies our
sensibilities, but simply because we desire to know Him and worship Him for
what He has revealed of Himself. And there is a way to answer that question
that remains faithful to sound biblical interpretation and theological
reflection.
The
answer that Scripture seems to give can be boiled down to two propositions.
First, though God is the ultimate cause of all things—even
evil—He is never the proximate, or efficient, cause of
evil. Second, Scripture regards only the efficient cause of evil as the
chargeable or blameworthy party. Let’s look to a sample of texts that bears
this out.
Assyria,
the Rod of My Anger
In
Isaiah 10, God pronounces woe upon His people for their idolatry and injustice
(Isa 10:1–2). He threatens
that He is about to bring about a “day of punishment” and “devastation which
will come from afar” (Isa 10:3).
“Nothing remains but to crouch among the captives or fall among the slain” (Isa 10:4). In verse 6, we
learn that God will carry out this punishment against wicked Israel by sending
the nation of Assyria to destroy her. He says, “I send it [i.e., Assyria]
against a godless nation and commission it against the people of My fury to
capture booty and to seize plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the
streets” (Isa 10:6).
God will send Assyria to level devastation upon Israel to punish her for her
idolatry.
And
yet, in verse 5, God also pronounces woe upon Assyria! He
says, “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger and the staff in whose hands is My
indignation” (Isa 10:5). He
even goes so far as to liken Assyria to an inanimate object—the rod of Yahweh’s
anger in His hand which He Himself wields. We might naturally ask, “How can it
be just for God to sendAssyria to destroy Israel—indeed, to
describe their involvement as so inactive as to liken them to an inanimate
object in Yahweh’s hand—and then punish them for the evil of
destroying Israel?” It simply won’t do to say that Yahweh merely “allowed”
Assyria to punish Israel; the text is far too active for that: “I send it against
a godless nation” (Isa 10:6).
The answer seems to lie in the concept of ultimate versus efficient causation.
Even though Yahweh is clearly the ultimate cause of Israel’s
destruction and the Assyrians are merely the rod of anger in His hand, yet the
Assyrians are the efficient cause of the evil.
Besides
this, God’s sovereign ordination of Assyria’s destruction of Israel in no
way coerced Assyria or forced them to do what they did not
otherwise want to do. Assyria wasn’t sitting around minding its own business
when God came and twisted their arms to mercilessly destroy a nation. No, they
still acted according to their freedom of inclination; they were doing what
they wanted to do. And yet, the reason they desired to destroy
Israel was not the reason for which Yahweh wanted to. Yahweh
wanted to righteously punish Israel for her idolatry and injustice. But Assyria
had other intentions. Verse 7 says, “Yet it does not so intend, nor does it
plan so in its heart.” In other words, Assyria does not intend to destroy
Israel for the sake of punishing unrighteousness. No, “but rather it is its
purpose to destroy and to cut off many nations. For it says, ‘Are not my
princes all kings?’” (Isa 10:7–8).
Assyria’s intention in destroying Israel was to arrogantly flex its military
muscle and pridefully make a name for itself among the nations.
God
ordains the evil of the destruction of Israel by Assyria. Yet while Assyria
meant it for evil—to satisfy its own pride and bloodlust—God meant it for good:
to punish unrighteousness and bring about repentance in His people. Assyria is
the efficient cause, and because their desires were sinful, they are accountable
for their sin. God is the ultimate cause, but because His desires and purposes
for ordaining that evil were not evil but righteous—in other words, because He
ordained the evil for goodness’ sake—He is not the chargeable cause
of sin.
The
Anger of the Lord Incited David
Something
similar takes place in 2 Samuel 24. This chapter details David’s sin of taking
a census among the people. We know it was sinful for a couple of reasons.
First, David himself confesses it as such. He says, “I have sinned greatly in
what I have done. But now, O Yahweh, please take away the iniquity of Your
servant, for I have acted very foolishly” (2 Sam 24:10).
Apparently, numbering the people was a display of David’s pride. He was basking
in the glory of the nation over which he was king. It was as
if he was saying, “Look at how numerous is my people!” Second, we also know it
was sinful because God responded by sending pestilence upon
the nation, with the result that 70,000 men died (2 Sam 24:15)! If
David was going to exalt himself and take pride in a nation of great numbers,
God was pleased to humble the great king by taking 70,000 of that great number
to the grave!
What
makes this a surprising scene is the opening verse of the narrative. In 2 Samuel 24:1, the text
says, “Now again the anger of Yahweh burned against Israel, and it incited
David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’” David confesses such
an act as sin (2 Sam 24:10),
and God punishes it as sin (2 Sam 24:15), and yet from
the outset we’re told that it was Yahweh’s anger that incited
David to take this census! More than that, in the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 21:1, the
inspired text says, “Then Satan stood up against Israel and
moved David to number Israel.” God and Satan are used entirely in parallel! The
author of Samuel says God incited David to take the census,
and the Chronicler says Satan incited David to take the census!
Now,
unless one is ready to admit a contradiction in Scripture, we must understand
that (a) God is the ultimate cause of this act, ultimately
decreeing that it should be; (b) Satan is a proximate cause,
the instrument Yahweh uses to stir up this evil in the heart of David; and (c)
David is the efficient cause, having carried it out according
to his own sinful inclination, and thus is culpable for the action.
And
although God is clearly the ultimate cause for this evil (He does not merely
“allow” Satan to do it; 2 Sam 24:1 will
not allow that understanding), Scripture does not at all imply that God is to
blame or that Satan and David are any less responsible. God’s motives in this
action must be presumed entirely righteous even though we are not explicitly
told what good God intended by ordaining this evil. After all, shall not the
judge of all the earth deal justly (Gen 18:25)? There can be
no unrighteousness with God, can there? May it never be (Rom 3:5–6)! And
yet because Satan always desires to ruin God’s people, and because David’s
motive was to pridefully exalt himself, they are the chargeable cause(s) of
this evil.
Whatever
Your Hand Predestined to Occur
The
final illustration of these principles may be found in the greatest moral evil
in history: the murder of the innocent Son of God. Two passages help us here:
Acts 2:22–23 –
Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you
by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in
your midst, just as you yourselves know—this Man, delivered over by the
predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands
of godless men and put Him to death.
Acts 4:27–28 –
For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant
Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the
Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose
predestined to occur.
So
there can be no question that Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and the
peoples of Israel were to blame for the crucifixion of Christ (Acts 4:27). Peter openly
indicts the men of Israel for their crime: “This Man . . . you nailed
to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (Acts 2:23; cf. 2:36). And yet, Peter also
explicitly says that such evil was accomplished “by the predetermined plan and
foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23).
Indeed, Herod, Pilate, the Jews, and the Gentiles were those whom God “anointed .
. . to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to
occur” (Acts 4:27–28).
Here
again we see that (a) God is the ultimate cause of the
crucifixion, predestining all of the events that led to the crucifixion, guaranteeing
that it would occur; (b) the Jews were a proximate cause,
seeing as how they incited Rome to crucify Christ; and (c) Herod, Pilate, and
other godless men were the efficient cause, because the
crucifixion was carried out by Roman authority. The Jews are held accountable
as a proximate cause, as Peter says “you nailed [Jesus] to a
cross by the handsof godless men.” That the
Romans actually nailed Jesus to a cross made the Jews no less
culpable for that crime. And yet God, by whose hand all of
these things ultimately came about, is not the chargeable cause of any evil.
Why? Because they meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. Herod, Pilate,
Judas, and the Jews conspired the crucifixion because they wanted to be rid of
this Man who indicted them for their sin. But God ordained the evil of the
cross for the good that it would bring; namely, the salvation of
His people from their sin.
So the
point is: God may be the ultimate cause of all that happens—even evil—and yet
not incur the guilt that rightly belongs to the proximate and/or efficient
cause(s), because: (1) He is never the efficient cause of
evil, and (2) He always ordains evil for good. God does not will sin as
sin, but for the good which He desires to bring from it. Edwards explains:
“[It is consistent
to say] that God has decreed every action of men, yea, every action that is
sinful, and every circumstance of those actions; that he predetermines that
they shall be in every respect as they afterwards are; that he determines that
there shall be such actions, and just so sinful as they are; and yet that God
does not decree the actions that are sinful, as sin, but decrees them as good.
. . . By decreeing an action as sinful, I mean decreeing it for the
sake of the sinfulness of the action. God decrees that they shall be sinful,
for the sake of the good that he causes to arise from the sinfulness thereof;
whereas man decrees them for the sake of the evil that is in them.” (Concerning
the Divine Decrees, Works, 2:527)
Unto
Our Highest Happiness
And what
is that good for which God ordains evil? Ultimately, we know the answer is
always for His glory.
To
those who would reproach God for holding accountable those who don’t have the
ability to resist His decree (cf. Rom 9:19), God answers by
reminding mere mortals that they’re above their pay grade: “On the contrary,
who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to
the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it? Or does not the potter
have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable
use and another for common use?” (Rom 9:20–21).
But to
the submissive, inquiring worshiper for whom the furthest thing from his mind
is to find fault with God, who simply wants to know his God and worship Him for
how He’s revealed Himself, God gives another answer. In Romans 9:22–23,
Paul says,
What if God,
willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much
patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And [what if] He did
so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy,
which He prepared beforehand for glory?
God
ordains sin and evil—He even ordains the eternal punishment of the wicked—to
make known to His elect the riches of His glory. You can’t do better than
Edwards here:
“It is a proper and
excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it
is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is,
that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be
proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It
is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not
at all. . . .
“Thus it is
necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness,
justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin
and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would
be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine
forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness
would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all. If it
were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be
no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any
preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no
manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be
pardoned, no misery to be saved from.
“How much happiness
soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired. . . .
So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature,
and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the
world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of
God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be
imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably
imperfect.” (Concerning the Divine Decrees, Works, 2:528)
God
ordains whatsoever comes to pass in order that His glory might ultimately
displayed to the utmost. And far from a
megalomaniacal narcissism, God’s pursuit of His own glory is “in
order to the highest happiness of the creature . . . because the creature’s
happiness consists in the knowledge of God.” And our knowledge of God would be
imperfect if we didn’t see the full expression of His attributes: grace, mercy,
forgiveness, justice, righteousness, and so on. And yet none of those
attributes could be fully expressed if there was not sin to punish and to
forgive, or sinners to whom to be gracious and merciful. God is not less glorious,
but more glorious, because He ordains evil. And the more
He magnifies His glory, the greater is His love to us. Surely God cannot be
charged with unrighteousness for doing that which amounts to the greatest
benefit for us who are His.
Oh, the depth of the
riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!
For ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?’
Or ‘Who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again?’
For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.
To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
When encountering a man blind from birth, the disciples asked Jesus who was responsible for his condition – this man or his parents. Jesus’ answer was clear and it has profound significance for our own suffering also.
