The chain of command ends with God. We don't need the Bible to understand that. A creator is greater than his creation. Unless, of course, we're talking about Dr. Frankenstein, in which case this logic is out the window. The analogy often used is this: It's your room, but it's God's house. I suppose that would work, to some degree, but it appears that God has given man more freedom than that. Here are some Biblical examples: God delivers Israel from Pharaoh to take them to the Promised Land, but when the people worship a golden calf in Moses's absence (leading to the death of many and even the contemplation of a hitting a national reset button) and then refuse to enter Canaan for fear of giants, God lets all of them die except for two men of faith. Yes, their children crossed the Jordan, but it would take more faith to believe that this was God's intention when they crossed the Red Sea. Why didn't he just change their hearts? Give them more faith? Did he not want them to cross, in which case he would make himself a liar and a manipulator? Even Paul didn't believe that. He blamed the people: For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "As I swore in my wrath, they shall not enter my rest." . . . Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." Hebrews 4:2-4, 6 In two cases, we do see God doing the hardening: with Pharaoh and with the first century Jews. In both cases, God was starting a new nation, one physical and one spiritual, in which the hardening was required. That is his prerogative. But that doesn't mean he always hardens and softens hearts. The verse I just quoted suggests that "hardening" is up to the person hearing from God. It is an issue of rebellion or obedience. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!" Luke 13:34 It seems that human rebellion can keep God's will at arms length. However, there are examples of when God takes action despite our rebellion. Like when he needed a prophet during an especially rebellious period in Israel's history. He says that he had prepared Jeremiah for his role before Jeremiah was even born. The same was true of John the Baptist. And Jesus. But don't jump to conclusions. This does not mean that God prepares every man and woman for a specific task before they are born. These were special people for special times. We don't have the right to insert ourselves into the Biblical text, or even insert our hopes or assumptions. We also see God grafting Israel out of the vine and grafting the Gentiles in. Paul says in Romans 11 that it was because of obedience and disobedience, which meant that God's actions were based on the free decisions of men. But does that mean we control God? No. Never has a created being forced God's hand. However, there have been negotiations, like with Abraham. There have been moments of special grace, like with Hezekiah. There have been moments that seemed cruel, like the death of Uzza. In all these cases, we must accept that God deals with nations according to their culture and era, with people according to their personality and faith, and with the history of the world according to his wisdom. God is sovereign, yes. But he is also relevant, pertinent, and needs nothing. When he intervenes, he intervenes. But in the meantime, he calls, he woos, he encourages. These are the actions of a person who wants a relationship, not like the devil who manipulates and possesses his people. How often do we perceive God's sovereignty in this cruel and selfish way?
About Me
- John Barnts
- If you would like to get on a Frank Update e-mail list, send your request to johnb(at)villagechristian.org. You may also use that address for private questions or comments.
14 comments:
We were created to have preferences... Some people love avocados or goat cheese, others find them icky. We like different music, art, clothing, vacation spots, we even like some people better than others... and then there are the friendships that just 'click.'
I have really been mindful lately of what all of those things represent or say about God, if we are created in His image, especially in regards to this current topic.
The last paragraph of this post touched on something I have been mulling over in my own mind for months and months now. If our God is a relational being, and has created us to be so, wouldn't it make sense that He would desire to be IN relationships with humans who want to KNOW Him, and put the energy and effort into building that relationship over time.
True, He can intervene and manipulate, soften hearts and illuminate minds... but I know that I would rather have someone's genuine affection for me, without having to sway them or convince them that I am lovable. And for some reason I have this sense that God does too. Yes, He loves all of mankind, but if this relationship we have with Him is a two way street, then I imagine He enjoys spending time with those who desire to know Him... not the ones that just want something from Him, or for Him to solve their problems.
I want to be one of those people. Don't you? Not someone who only calls on God when trouble arises, but one who sits in His presence just in hope that He will reveal more of Himself.
Call me crazy, but if someone decides they don't want to know me, wouldn't it be better for me to invest my time into someone who genuinely cared for me and liked being with and around me? Somebody who really 'got me'.
Does that seem incongruent with election? I really don't think so.
Thanks Wendy. I don't know Him well, but I think you are right that He is looking for those who will put in effort and seek Him just to know Him. I can feel Him warm to me in the times when I lay aside things just to be with Him, especially things that I want a lot (like sleep these days). That is one way that God and people are the same.
My wife came across this blog and showed it to me and I wanted to take you up on the offer to "engage" in the discussion. I sincerely appreciate your desire to study the Scriptures and the attributes of God, especially in the economy of the Western Church today where much focus is upon self, signs and wonders and monetary prosperity instead of Christ-likeness. Thank you for this opportunity.
MUCH clarity can be found when studying the Word by acknowledging the vitality of employing a proper hermeneutic (after asking the Holy Spirit to help us understand His Word). We all have one whether we recognize it or not. To properly understand ANY ancient writing, it is paramount that a literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic is used. This way, we are FORCED to ask questions such as: "What did the author say? What did the author mean? What would his readers understand him to mean given the specific words/grammar he used? What rules of grammar in the original language govern the thought(s)? What does history have to say about what is written?" and so on. If we do not "come to" the Word of God this way, then we easily find ourselves using Philosophy (in full or in part) to explain Theological questions: "If THIS is true, then THAT is true...I THINK God wants such and such" etc. When this happens, "anything goes" because there is nothing to govern our thought processes and we, by default, rely heavily upon our own "wisdom." I am NOT saying that logical conclusions can never be drawn but by holding to a literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic, we MUST draw these conclusions based upon the Logic that the Scriptures teach and NOT what WE think "ought" to be true. In other words, this hermeneutic forces our presuppositions and traditions to the "surface of the discussion/thought" and makes it easier to understand what the text of Scripture is saying...then all we have to do is agree with Scripture. ;)
God IS utterly sovereign (if I may be redundant to make the point, since sovereign IS sovereign) as Scripture says: “...for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it” (Isaiah 46:9-11).
“…For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, 'What have You done?'” (Daniel 4:34b-35).
“I know, O LORD, that a man's way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps” (Jeremiah 10:23).
“Many plans are in a man's heart, but the counsel of the LORD will stand” (Proverbs 19:21).
“The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4).
“…according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11).
God has decreed all that has happened and will happen...because He IS sovereign. He has decreed the "ends" AND the "means" to the ends; He has even decreed sin AND the AMOUNTS of sin that He will use to bring glory to Himself.
“Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete" (Genesis 15:16). “And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also” (Revelation 6:11).
So why didn't God change the hearts of Israel or give them more faith? In short, because that is exactly what He ordained to transpire at that time. Paul was absolutely correct in blaming the people for their lack of faith as mankind is ALWAYS responsible for his actions, irrespective of his ABILITY to "do the right thing." Man is given Justice or Mercy by God...nothing different, nothing less.
What do we KNOW to be true about mankind from birth?
“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5).
“The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9).
“… They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good. The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one” (Psalm 14:1b-3).
“…because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7-8).
“And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds…” (Colossians 1:21).
Scripture teaches us that man is born God's enemy, corrupted by sin and is NOT prone to obeying God, rather that He is INCAPABLE of it without God's intervention into man's existence...nevertheless, man is entirely culpable for his own wickedness, because he LOVES his own sin (John 3:19, 2 Peter 2:15) and is hopelessly affected by sin (Romans 5:12). Take the time to read Isaiah 10:5-19 and see how God sends the King of Assyria to execute His wrath upon Israel and then PUNISHES Assyria for rising against Israel. So when we read that God “hardened” Pharaoh’s heart, we must understand this to say that He hardened (or “made strong”) Pharaoh’s ALREADY GOD-OPPOSED heart to CONTINUE to say “no” THROUGH THE MANY PLAGUES…to do what He decreed to come to pass (remember, each plague corresponded to an Egyptian deity over which God obviously intended to prove His supremacy). In other words, it was GOD who caused Pharaoh to say “no” to Moses all the times that he did so…to bring about His own purposes, the will of a sovereign Creator (I believe you are in agreement with this since you said it is God’s prerogative to harden hearts). What the text is really saying is that God orchestrated the whole account of Pharaoh and Moses, NOT that God had to harden Pharaoh’s heart so that he wouldn’t acquiesce to Moses’ request; He did this to bring about His purposes for His glory: “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart THAT I MAY MULTIPLY MY SIGNS AND MY WONDERS IN THE LAND OF EGYPT. When Pharaoh will not listen to you, then I will lay My hand on Egypt, and bring out My hosts, My people the sons of Israel, from the land of Egypt by great judgments. AND THE EGYPTIANS SHALL KNOW THAT I AM THE LORD, WHEN I STRETCH OUT MY HAND ON EGYPT AND BRING OUT THE SONS OF ISRAEL FROM THEIR MIDST” (Exodus 7:3-5).
Therefore, when we look at Luke 13:34, it is erroneous to conclude that man's will can keep God will at arm's length because we learn from the Text of Scripture that man is, in no way, sovereign but that God is. Unredeemed man, who loves his sin and FREELY chooses it all day long AS WELL AS redeemed man are both utterly incapable of thwarting the will of God in any way; that is to say, the sin-corrupted, finite creature has no power whatsoever to affect the will of the holy, just, pure, all-powerful Creator God. If we look at Luke 13:34 and we conclude that God is hoping for a relationship that man is ultimately denying, then we are talking about God’s Sovereignty as it relates to Soteriology (the doctrine of Salvation); that is, "how" man comes to God. So if the conclusion is that God calls man to Himself but man can refuse this calling, then what do we make of what Jesus says just 3 chapters prior in Luke 10:22? Jesus says, "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, AND ANYONE TO WHOM THE SON WILLS TO REVEAL HIM” (parallel passage is Matthew 11:27). The Word is not teaching that man can refuse God's calling AND that only those whom Jesus wills to reveal the Father WILL ACTUALLY know the Father (answer His calling); this would be contradictory. In other words, it would be contradictory to teach that a called person can refuse God (like the Religious Leaders in Luke 13) AND that everyone to whom Jesus reveals the Father will certainly come to Him. In the Luke 13 passage, Jesus weeps because the leaders of Israel did not know the God they professed and they endeavored to keep those under their rule from hearing about the true Messiah; "Jerusalem" refers to the Religious Leaders and "your children" refers to those under their leadership. We know that, even though the Jews opposed Jesus (and even though He wept over this fact), MANY DID receive Him...according to the sovereign will of God. The text is NOT teaching that any one person or any group of people can undo the perfect plan of God; it does, however, demonstrate the tremendous amount of compassion Jesus felt for those under the rule of the Jews and how much their sin grieved Him.
We conclude, therefore, that man’s rebellion (or his hesitation to act, or his negotiations with God, etc.) is part of the MEANS that God ordained to bring about His purposes and NOT something that has, in any way, THWARTED His purposes. If we are talking about God’s sovereignty, then we cannot look too closely at individual actions, rather we must keep in the forefront of our minds what the Scriptures teach about just how powerful is the God of the Universe and how HE controls everything…from the deeds of man to the flight of birds (Isaiah 46:9-11;referenced above).
The Sovereignty of God can lead to many different doctrinal discussions which would take up much more room than I already have. Thank you for taking the time to read all of this…
David,
If there is one thing I appreciate, it is someone who is passionate about spiritual things, eager to study the scriptures, and has a desire to honor God. With those passions firmly in place, the Holy Spirit can do a lot to move you in a direction of truth.
Even though I will disagree with you in some cases, I want you to know that up front. And encourage you to continue to post. This is how iron sharpens iron, brother. And I am sincere in this.
Thank you, John. I agree and sincerely appreciate your willingness to dialogue!
What about when Jesus sees Nathaniel, and declares, "Here is an Israelite indeed, in whose heart is no guile (Jn 1:47)?" It did not appear that he saw himself as "God's enemy," nor did Jesus see him that way.
What about David? Is not his entire life's story the drama of a man whose heart yearned for God? Certainly, you could argue that either of these men got grade A hearts from heaven's cardiology center as they came into existence, but I challenge you to demonstrate this from Scripture (and not a Gene Edwards book). There are good reasons why men have spent their lives on these kinds of questions without arriving at viable answers.
Another question: is foreknowledge the same thing as control? Many of the verses quoted in the original post and the responses deal with foreknowledge, but not necessarily control. For God to know what a person is going to do does not mean He made them do it... or that He made them to do it.
Enjoyed the post and the responses.
Hey Gardiner,
I appreciate your questions. I do not have the same amount of time today as I did yesterday but wanted to “fire off” a few Scriptures and thoughts that deal with the questions you raised.
As you may already know, when we study any portion of the Bible, it is important to look at the context; the immediate context of the verse, the context of the chapter and the context of the Book. As I stated in an earlier post, we also have to acknowledge that Scripture interprets Itself and, in many cases, certain texts will always govern OTHER texts that speak to the same/similar topic(s). So, when we read John 1:47, we MUST also acknowledge that this passage is not dealing with mankind’s SPIRITUAL STATE before Almighty God, rather the calling of the Disciples. So, when Jesus said that Nathaniel was without guile (or “craft” or “deceit” “subtlety”), we cannot understand this to mean the Nathaniel was WITHOUT SIN. There are many Mormons, for example, who are honest and benevolent and faithful in their dealings with men but who, sadly, do not know the true Jesus and are, therefore, headed for eternal torment. These kinds of people could legitimately be described the same way Nathaniel was; the only difference being is that Nathaniel was CERTAINLY called of God and our hypothetical Mormon friends are not (the Lord builds His Church from ALL KINDS of lost people, including Mormons; I’m only using Mormons as an example, not making another, specific point). The same goes for King David or any other person. NO ONE can boast of anything about themselves before God. If Nathaniel truly was sinless, then HOW was he? He hadn’t yet put his faith in the Lamb of God who died ONCE FOR ALL TIME (Hebrews 10:10-14) so he wasn’t walking around in a POSITIONALLY sinless state. No, Nathaniel was merely a “good person” from a horizontal perspective. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is the GIFT of God” (Ephesians 2:8). The word “that” (in this verse) according to the Greek grammar, encompasses everything mentioned before it (i.e. grace and faith) and Ephesians 2 IS dealing with man’s spiritual state before God. Verse 9 says, “not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Romans 4:2 says, “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, BUT NOT BEFORE GOD.” The immediate contexts in these passages is teaching that works do not justify man before a Holy God, therefore, we cannot boast about works OR ANYTHING ELSE about us (since we are saved ONLY by grace through faith). In other words, if there is ANYTHING AT ALL (even a guile-less heart) that we are holding up before God as proof of our “goodness,” it is insufficient because it is not THE ONLY THING that CAN justify us, the Blood of Christ.
OK, asked for supporting Scriptures (I have cited many of these already in other posts but do not know what you have or have not read). “…There is NO ONE who does good. The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are ANY who understand, WHO SEEK AFTER GOD. They have ALL turned aside, together they have become CORRUPT; there is NO ONE who does good, NOT EVEN ONE” (Psalm 14:1-3 and 53:1-3)…“For while we were still HELPLESS ((because we had NOTHING “good” to offer God)), at the right time Christ died for the UNGODLY. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet SINNERS, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were ENEMIES ((there it is)) we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Therefore, just as THROUGH ONE MAN SIN ENTERED INTO THE WORLD, and death through sin, and so DEATH SPREAD TO ALL MEN, BECAUSE ALL SINNED—” (Romans 5:6-12). The Psalmist and the Apostle couldn’t have made it any clearer. EVERY soul born of man is “corrupted” by sin and, therefore, separated from God; born “ungodly,” born a “sinner;” born His “enemy.” So, when we read about a man in whose heart is no guile, or a man after God’s own heart, we MUST recognize what they WERE from birth (God’s enemies) AND THEN recognize HOW they could be seeking God in the first place, since the Psalmist makes it clear that NO ONE who seeks after God; and WHY don’t they? Answer: because they are POSITIONALLY SEPARATED from God from birth. I certainly believe these Scriptures ALONE are a “viable answer” to the question. I would argue that simply because many men have discussed this or ANY issue does not NECESSARIY mean that the issue is unanswerable or, at least, unanswered.
You asked, “is foreknowledge the same thing as control?” I would answer that the Scriptures teach that it is. The question is not merely, “Does God know the future?” but “HOW does God know the future?” If God does not control the future, even every last molecule of the Universe, then we cannot believe that any promise He has made in the past will actually come to fruition. Take the time to carefully read Isaiah 41:17-29, where God makes the point that He (and not idols) knows future because He controls it; as He states in verses 21-26, “‘Present your case,’ the LORD says. ‘Bring forward your strong arguments,’ the King of Jacob says. ‘Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; as for the former events, declare what they were, that we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming; declare the things that are going to come afterward, that we may know that you are gods; indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together. Behold, you are of no account, and your work amounts to nothing; he who chooses you is an abomination. I have aroused one from the north, and he has come; from the rising of the sun he will call on My name; and he will come upon rulers as upon mortar, even as the potter treads clay. Who has declared this from the beginning, that we might know? Or from former times, that we may say, “He is right!”? Surely there was no one who declared, surely there was no one who proclaimed, surely there was no one who heard your words.’” In these verses we see that God is the only one who truly knows the past and the future. In Isaiah 44:7 God makes the same point. In Isaiah 45:7, God says that He is the One DOING the things that transpire in time (specifically, in this passage, in the present): “The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I AM THE LORD WHO DOES ALL THESE.” In Isaiah 46:9-11 we see that God DECLARES “the ends from the beginning” and that He accomplishes His “good pleasure” in everything that transpires under the sun, from the flight of birds to the deeds of men: “For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, DECLARING THE END FROM THE BEGINNING, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, 'MY PURPOSE WILL BE ESTABLISHED, and I WILL ACCOMPLISH ALL MY GOOD PLEASURE'; calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of My purpose from a far country. TRULY I HAVE SPOKEN; TRULY I WILL BRING IT TO PASS. I HAVE PLANNED IT, SURELY I WILL DO IT.” And then there is Lamentations 2:17 and 3:37-38, “The LORD has done what HE PURPOSED; He has accomplished His word which HE COMMANDED FROM DAYS OF OLD. He has thrown down without sparing, and He has caused the enemy to rejoice over you; He has exalted the might of your adversaries…Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, UNLESS THE LORD HAS COMMANDED IT? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both good and ill go forth?” So, we see that God TRULY UNDERSTANDS the past, He DECLARES the end of things that have not yet happened and He ACCOMPLISHES IN THE PRESENT all His good pleasure. In other words, HE is in complete control of the events in time and does not merely have a static knowledge of them. And this is true of the deeds of men and not ONLY His own. “…and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, HAVING DETERMINED THEIR APPOINTED TIMES AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THEIR HABITATION…” (Acts 17:26). Notice that GOD DETERMINED not that men chose. “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). Considering this passage and all the others before it, we see that the Scriptures teach that is it God’s will that HAS affected the past and DOES affect the present and WILL affect the future and NOT the decisions of creatures that have supposed autonomously freewill. The Bible even teaches that God has decreed, not only sin itself, but SPECIFIC AMOUNTS of sin to carry out His purposes, “Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete" (Genesis 15:16). “And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also” (Revelation 6:11). So, it is PARAMOUNT that we examine all the contexts of any portion of Scripture before we arrive at our conclusions.
I thought I was just going to “fire off” a few sentences…that was almost 3 hours ago! Sorry for the long posts but I think it is important to endeavor to make the point you are defending…
As David points out, God's sovereignty puts Him in control of the present, and man's autonomy is only "supposed." But Frank discusses in his more recent Musing on Human Suffering post the problem of awful events. God's control of the present means He is responsible for children being raped. That's a pretty serious charge to level at a God who calls Himself good.
Paul grapples with this question in Romans 9, and he declares, "Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!" He then buzzes through Israel's history to support his doctrine of election. It's in verse 19 that he poses the million-dollar question: "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" Interestingly, rather than offer a solution, he simply replies that we don't have the right to even ask.
God endures child rape "that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy" (vs. 23). This is great comfort to parents whose child has been raped and brutally murdered. It may seem tragic, but it is really God making known the riches of His glory.
If this sounds absurd, it's because it is absurd. Paul is not trying to deal with human autonomy vs. Divine control... he's not thinking about child rape. He is trying to explain why Israel rejected Jesus. Otherwise, why would he open the next section (10:1) with the statement that "My heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved." You don't pray that a clock will stop showing the time it has been programmed to display. This whole section of Romans is about Israel.
Consider Daniel. He read prophecy and understood that the time was coming when Israel would be released from captivity. What was his response? He prayed (Dan. 9:2). Maybe Paul had this example in mind when he responded to election with petition.
Look, none of this is meant to undermine the concept of original sin. Nor am I looking for Scripture that undermines the sovereignty of God. You cannot read Scripture with an open heart and deny His sovereignty over His own creation. But you cannot come to Scripture with that same open heart and escape that He has endowed men with freedom to choose.
"Choose life, that both you and your descendants may live." Deut. 30:19
"You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." Luke 18:22
Pretty much any verse on repentance...
If we come to Scripture looking to fit it into a grid with which our mind is comfortable, then we have made our mind the measure of truth, and that is a faulty measure. The point is that God's sovereignty and free will can coexist. John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius were both men who loved God. One man focused on God's sovereignty to the exclusion of man's free will. The other focused on free will to the exclusion of God's sovereignty. Hey, Ray Comfort and Gene Edwards love God too, but they come to some radically different conclusions by zeroing in on different aspects of Scripture.
What pulls it together is the word of God. "My word shall not return to Me void." God speaks reality. "Let there be light." Through the prophets He spoke many things, some of which have come to pass, and some which have yet to be fulfilled. The fact that God can speak a word and it will come to pass, as all the while men exercise their free choice, speaks more loudly of His power than if He were a cosmic clock maker.
There is a relational aspect to all this, that Frank has explored several times already. Mrs. Frank mentioned the Stepford Wives. Did God make a robotic bride? Hardly. He made a bride who could choose Him or reject him. How that plays out on the individual level is that He woos humankind, "seeking one whose heart is truly His." One man stands out from all others... Abraham. There was something special about this man. God called and he responded. All the drama that followed was about promises God made to this man. In Paul's discussion of election, he talks about Jacob and Esau. "Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated." But it was really about Abraham. God made a promise, and He kept it in spite of a lying scoundrel (Jacob) and generation after generation of his complaining, ungrateful descendants.
Although I don't always like it when Frank does this, because it risks remaking God in our image, I'll draw on my relationship to my wife as an example. Before I dated her (when I wanted to date her), I didn't control her. I did, however, "show up" an awful lot where I knew she would be. She had the choice to ignore me and go about her business, or respond to my overtures (it took a few). Scripture says that when Moses walked by the burning bush, he "turned aside" to see what it was. He responded to God's overtures. Did God force him? In a manner of speaking, yes. The phenomenon He used to get his attention was beyond the boundaries of nature. Looking back to the verses on repentance, can we repent—can we "turn aside" without Him calling us? No. But still, we must choose to turn aside (yet, He has foreknowledge of what our choice will be).
The clearest picture of this is in Hosea, where God very lays out his relationship to Israel using this very imagery. Paul "proof texts" from Hosea, and we tend to follow suit, missing the larger narrative. Peter says of Paul that "many misinterpret his words to their own destruction." Perhaps this is one way we do just that, missing the forest for the trees. And what of Peter, he says "Be diligent to make your calling and election sure..." (2 Pet. 1:10). Huh? It's election. God is sovereign. This is Stepford. What does diligence have to do with it?
Before signing off, I want to revisit the Daniel story one more time. Daniel understood the Word of the Lord and his response was to pray. He "turned aside." Revelation has nearly as much bridal imagery as Hosea, and it ends with with the words "Even so , come, Lord Jesus." So many clamor to understand Revelation—what kind of timetable it represents. But that's a Stepford response. A Moses response, a Daniel response, a bridal response is to pray. John's final words are a prayer—a petition. It's not about understanding the timetable so you can know when it will happen. It's about understanding so you can pray, "Come back, Lord Jesus!" Interesting that Jesus said even He didn't know when that time would be. Why? Perhaps this was because it depended on the church, His bride, "turning aside"—responding. The Father knows when that will be, but know one else, and He is putting the burning bushes in place that will get our attention. The implication is that mankind's free choice has some part in the fulfillment of prophecy, and yet God knows the outcome and has it fully under His control.
Hey Gardiner,
I appreciated the thoughtfulness and demeanor of your post. I would like to respond now but am on the way out the door with my wife to celebrate our anniversary for a couple of days.
Blessings...
Hey Gardiner,
There is so much I want to respond to:
You said, “God's control of the present means He is responsible for children being raped. That's a pretty serious charge to level at a God who calls Himself good.” This statement implies (at the least) that God does NOT control the present, or ANY “PART” of time, really, since the “past” and “present” and “future” all relate to MAN’S PERSPECTIVE as he is subjected to the boundaries of time. If we are going to say that God does not control the present (as we experience “the present”), then we NECESSARILY must conclude that He does/did NOT control the past OR the future; it is ALL “present” to God, where He is accomplishing His purpose (Isaiah 46:10-11, Romans 9:11—as His will relates to Soteriology—, Acts 4:27-28, Acts 17:26). In other words, when “the past” (as we “see” it) was “the present” to those who lived in it, IF we affirm this belief then we MUST conclude that God did not control the past (but, presumably that MAN DID); the same would apply to “the future.” I challenge you to demonstrate (by exegesis and not isogesis) that Scripture teaches that God is NOT in control of all events in time but MERELY reacts to the will of man. I acknowledge (as I have in another post) that this can appear to be the case if we focus too closely upon certain accounts AND DISREGARD the many passages (some of which I have cited) that clearly teach that God IS in complete control of ALL events in time—as with ANY topic of Scripture, we must acknowledge/consider ALL THE SIMULTANEOUS TRUTHS that are taught and NOT only what is “easy” for US to believe. One of the major problems with the professing Church today is its man-centered slant on the text of Scripture, which is ironic; Scripture ABOUNDS with phrases such as, “for My glory” or “for My great Name” or “according to His purpose” etc. yet MANY men try to demonstrate “man’s worthiness” or “man’s perspective” throughout the pages of the Bible. I will plan to revisit this point later.
Concerning the issue of child rape or ANY OTHER tragic event (and I DO NOT intend to demean/ignore the great pain people experience in such cases), we STILL must submit to the teaching of the Word of God. Does the Bible really teach that God bestowed upon man the autonomous freewill, by which countless purposeless atrocities are acted out upon the Creation but have no purposeful parts to play in the Decree of God? A careful study of the Whole of Scripture reveals this notion to be false; perhaps difficult to accept, but false nonetheless.
You said, “God endures child rape "that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy" (vs. 23). This is great comfort to parents whose child has been raped and brutally murdered. It may seem tragic, but it is really God making known the riches of His glory” and “Paul grapples with this question in Romans 9, and he declares, “Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!” Romans 9 is NOT discussing God’s sovereignty over the tragic events in life but God’s sovereignty AS IT RELATES TO SALVATION, so to say that Paul grapples with “this question” is erroneous. You cited verse 23 but this verse CANNOT be viewed apart from (at least) verse 22, “What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, EVEN US, WHOM HE ALSO CALLED, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.” Verse 23 and the preceding verses teach that God, according to His own purposes (v. 11), chose NOT to save some people “in order that He might make known the riches of His glory” on “us, whom He also CALLED” (He does not call everyone; look at Romans 8:28-30 and let the text define “foreknowledge” and who is “called” and who is “justified” and who is “glorified.” The text teaches that the “called” people are the “glorified” people and that His “foreknowledge” is based upon what He “predestines”). God IS in control of tragic events and uses them for His glory but that is not what Romans 9 is teaching. You said rightly that Paul “then buzzes through Israel’s history to support his doctrine of election” because THAT is the point of the chapter, and NOT His control of tragic events. In other words, I don’t think you intended to proof text a passage dealing with Soteriology to demonstrate God’s sovereignty over horrific occurrences; and perhaps you were NOT using this as a proof text as your sentence, “If this sounds absurd, it’s because it is absurd. Paul is not trying to deal with human autonomy vs. Divine control...he’s not thinking about child rape. He is trying to explain why Israel rejected Jesus.” I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS STATEMENT OF YOURS though I’m not sure “how to follow” much of what you said immediately previous to this statement because I certainly was not defending this line of argumentation; for this reason I am posting the comments above. But since you did comment on the main point of Romans 9, I wanted to mention that Paul ISN’T merely explaining why ISRAEL ALONE rejected Jesus, but why ANYONE rejects Jesus. It is important to acknowledge that Paul is writing to the Church at Rome, which was primarily made up of GENTILES and not Jews, meaning that there would be no point to reference the Jews ALONE while addressing a Gentile congregation. Paul goes on in verses 6-8 to make the point that “Israel” does not consist of ONLY of the Jewish People (although I DO recognize a DISTINCTION between “Israel” and “the Church” as they relate to Eschatology) but that “Israel” IS DEFINED AS “the children of the promise,” that is, from “Gentiles” also; THIS is one of the reasons why Paul references Israel to a Gentile congregation in the first place. The other reason Paul does this is that the Jews were THE ONLY PEOPLE on earth with a written, historical relationship with God…which prophetically mentions the inclusion of the Gentiles. So, “this whole section of Romans 9 is about” God’s sovereignty AS IT RELATES TO THE SALVATION OF ANY PERSON…BECAUSE it defines “Israel” (in this context) as the Elect. In other words, not EVERY Jew is guaranteed heaven and not EVERY Gentile is guaranteed hell. The Apostle clearly demonstrates that the Elect consist of Jew and Gentile (v. 24) AND that those who are elected are chosen “in order that GOD’S PURPOSE ACCORDING TO HIS CHOICE might stand” (v.11). Notice that the text does not say that it is according to man’s freewill OR a “coexistence” of man’s freewill and God’s sovereignty. The text is very, very clear. Incidentally, I do believe man has “freewill” but NOT that he has “autonomously freewill” like God does.
Paul begins Romans 10 with, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation” because he has great compassion for his countrymen DESPITE the HARD TRUTH of the doctrine of Election that he just painstakingly laid out. And, frankly, that is how every redeemed person should view lost people. We cannot know who “is” and who “is not” of the Elect (and we are not called to do this) but we can, in obedience to our Great Savior and Lord, show the compassion it takes to tell a dying world about the only Saving Lord.
I like your reference to Daniel. What an awesome example of someone who loved and obeyed God! I AGREE that Paul DID want to elicit the prayers of the Church for all lost people…THIS IS A HUGE PART OF OUR CALLING, our biblical model. We pray to acknowledge God as our Sovereign King, to demonstrate our WILLING SUBMISSION to Him (because He has FREED us to love Him and worship Him in spirit and in truth) and we pray because God did not only ordain the “ends” (of “salvation” in this case), that is, exactly “who” would be saved from His wrath, but He ALSO ordained the “means” of bringing people to Himself, that is, via the prayers of the saints.
I recognize the many verses that call for a decision on the part of man; to deny these verses would be to ignore the truth of Scripture. But we ALSO have to recognize the many, many other passages that teach the SIMULTANEOUS TRUTH that man is sometimes held accountable by God for certain actions (or for NOT acting in a certain manner) that he COULD NOT have carried out differently. As I posted before, God establishes in Jeremiah 6:10 that His people “cannot listen” but as recently after this verse as verse 19 says, “I am bringing disaster on this people…because they have not listened to My words…” We see BOTH TRUTHS in action AT THE SAME TIME: Israel cannot listen to God AND He is punishing them for not listening. It is verses such as these that demonstrate that man does have a choice but does not have the autonomously freewill to “choose as God Himself chooses” unless He imposes His will upon our lives in the form of “calling” us to Himself. In Matthew 11:27-28 and Acts 2:39, we see two SIMULTANEOUS TRUTHS: 1) EVERYONE is charged to “come to Me” and to “repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” AND 2) NO ONE can “know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the SON WILLS to reveal Him” and that “the promise is for…as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.” Again, the texts are clear…even if they are not “easy” to believe.
You said, “If we come to Scripture looking to fit it into a grid with which our mind is comfortable, then we have made our mind the measure of truth, and that is a faulty measure.” I AGREE and have made this point at least once. The fact is, many people who make this assertion are doing just that and are heavily influenced by their presuppositions and traditions; THIS IS WHY A LITERAL-GRAMMATICAL-HISTORICAL HERMENEUTIC IS IMPERATIVE TO USE when we “come to Scripture” because then—and only then—are we forced (in a good way ;)) to exegete the passage and not “pour” our own meaning, preferences, beliefs into “the mix.” As I said before, I did not submit to these Truths because I applied a grid to them, rather, after fighting them for 3 years, I realized that my problems with them were rooted in “MY preferences, beliefs” etc. I didn’t think they were “fair” or whatever. I could not “get away” from these kinds of passages and, therefore, attempted to “dig in” and understand them…I had no choice (no pun intended ;)) but either to accept them as Truth or to resist/reject them as “unacceptable” WHEN I employed a l-g-h hermeneutic to understand them. BTW, I would ask anyone reading this, “What is YOUR hermeneutic?”
You said, “The fact that God can speak a word and it will come to pass, as all the while men exercise their free choice, speaks more loudly of His power than if He were a cosmic clock maker.” I would argue that this is primarily a philosophical statement AND that it IGNORES the many verses such as Romans 9:11, “…in order that GOD’S PURPOSE ACCORDING TO HIS CHOICE might stand…”
You said, “There is a relational aspect to all this, that Frank has explored several times already. Mrs. Frank mentioned the Stepford Wives. Did God make a robotic bride? Hardly. He made a bride who could choose Him or reject him. How that plays out on the individual level is that He woos humankind, ‘seeking one whose heart is truly His.’ One man stands out from all others... Abraham. There was something special about this man. God called and he responded.” MANY responses (I’ll try to be more brief): 1) The “bride” are those who DID/WILL choose Him NOT EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD who MAY OR MAY NOT CHOOSE HIM. I think you meant to say that He made “people” who could choose Him (thus, becoming His Bride) or reject Him (thus—as I have maintained— remaining His enemies). As I have also defended, the Bride is FREED to worship God in spirit and in truth…NOT robotic in its relation to Christ. Concerning the, “remaining God’s enemies”, I referenced Psalm 14:1-3 and Romans 5:6-12 in my last post. 2) Based upon these two passages (and many others I can cite if anyone would like me to), “who” is the person whose heart is truly His and “how” did they so become? What is it about you that YOU accepted Christ while YOUR NEIGHBOR did not? What about Abraham? “What” is it that is “special” about Abraham that he responded? Romans 4:1-2 says Abraham had NOTHING to boast about before God. 3) This idea of “wooing” is not a biblical concept. Yes, God calls (generally and specifically), even sometimes sounding like He is pleading, but to say that He MERELY “woos” people is to BLATENTLY IGNORE the many other SIMULTANEOUS TRUTHS about God fulfilling what HE DESIRES TO ACCOMPLISH; I have cited many. “All that the FATHER GIVES Me SHALL COME to Me…No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws ((usually rendered “drags”)) him; and I WILL raise him up on the last day…” (John 6:37, 44). Notice that salvation is predicated on THE FATHER GIVING TO THE SON individual people…NOT individual people choosing God.
When you said, “The clearest picture of this is in Hosea, where God very lays out his relationship to Israel using this very imagery. Paul "proof texts" from Hosea, and we tend to follow suit, missing the larger narrative” were you implying that Paul was missing some point rather than Divinely writing Scripture?
You also said, “Peter says of Paul that ‘many misinterpret his words to their own destruction.’ Perhaps this is one way we do just that, missing the forest for the trees. And what of Peter, he says ‘Be diligent to make your calling and election sure...’ (2 Pet. 1:10). Huh? It's election. God is sovereign. This is Stepford. What does diligence have to do with it?” The passage you are referring to is 2 Peter 3:14b-16, which says, “…just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which THE UNTAUGHT AND UNSTABLE DISTORT, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” Peter says that the “untaught and unstable” distort (not merely misinterpret) the Scriptures (he refers to Paul’s writings as “Scripture” when he says, “as they do also THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES…”) for their own purposes and destruction NOT that godly men misinterpret Scriptures and, therefore, merely miss the point of it. And we are often called to act becoming of our Lord. Peter says in verse 14, “…be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless…” and in verse 11, “…what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness.” Paul, in 2 Corinthians 13:5, encourages the professing church to “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!” What Peter is doing in 2 Peter 1:10 is not foreign but completely in line with the admonitions of the Word of God. We profess a holy God, therefore, we should strive to act holy (as Peter says prior to verse 10) so as not to bring shame upon His Name AND so as not to delude ourselves; all of this is true SIMULTANEOUSLY with the fact that only those who God calls to Himself according to His purpose WILL ACTUALLY come to Him.
There is more I’d like to say but will end with mentioning how much I respect what you conveyed when you said, “…it risks remaking God in our own image…” It is extremely important that we are careful about what we say and how we speak concerning the Lord for this very reason and to endeavor to continually recognize Him as our Sovereign and His Word as Truth.
Thanks for the response. A couple of things to note: My first section in the last response was supposed to be sarcasm, but I forgot a rule about writing on the web—that sarcasm does not translate. There is no tone of voice, no facial gestures. My comment about Paul's Romans 9 discussion being comfort to parents was meant to be sarcastic. An erudite presentation of divine election is likely to elicit physical assault, not gratitude, from an embittered parent whose child has been violated. I doubt even Paul (although the John-Mark incident makes me wonder) would be that insensitive. I still contend that his primary purpose was to explain Israel's state to his (primarily gentile, as you point out) readers in Rome.
Second, to imply that you are practicing pure exegesis, free of isogesis, is like a reporter claiming to file unbiased stories. We cannot help but bring something to the text and inject that into our reading, even if we aren't in search of a "theme" (which both of us are, by the way). I think this is part of the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in relation to Scripture—He reveals Gods thoughts to those who are willing to listen. Hence the assertion that "the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
This brings me to Paul's prooftexting. I'd not be so arrogant as to assert that Paul was "missing some point." I do believe his letters were God-breathed. What I find overwhelming about his message, however, is the way he uses the Old Testament. He supports justification by faith with half a verse from Habakkuk. I don't think Paul applied a literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic to this verse to extract the truths he did. It came by revelation, filtered through his understanding of his own people's history.
When you or I try to follow suit, prooftexting to support our argument, do we think we are following in Paul's footsteps? Perhaps, if the revelatory element is there—if we are coming to the enterprise as spiritual people (as in, led by the Holy Spirit). But most prooftexting is just the practice of that isogesis that you mentioned.
Finally, I wasn't trying to polemicize against the sovereignty of God. The goal was to present the possibility that His sovereignty and our free choice coexist— a "simultaneous truth" to borrow your term. That is why godly men and women can see both in Scripture. Just as Scripture can say that Satan moved David to number Israel in 1 Chron. 21:1, and then sayGod was the one who moved David in 2 Sam. 24:1, it can assign to man the responsibility to choose righteousness over evil—to choose God over the world, and simultaneously assert that God is sovereign over man and indeed all creation. Paradoxes are not problematic in God's economy.
Hey, thanks for all the energy you've put into this discussion. It's refreshing to read dialogue on the faith that is more than a string of cliches or pop psychology. Poor Frank. Our responses are longer than his posts.
Hey Gardiner,
I will have to be brief (no, really ;-)) as my wife has very recently been diagnosed with a chronic back condition that usually only afflicts people MUCH older than her; she is not yet 39 and needs more attention because of this reality. Additionally, I am in the Landscape Industry and am gearing up for 1 of the 2 busiest times of our Season. I am also a father of 3 and an elder at our church with regular responsibilities for which I need to study/prepare/meet with the other men etc. I preface my response with all of that only to explain why this entry is not an in-depth response (I can almost hear the shouts of glee ;)).
Yah, I knew you were using sarcasm but had trouble following when you used Romans 9 to make a point concerning God’s sovereignty over tragic events. When you say, “An erudite presentation of divine election is likely to elicit physical assault, not gratitude, from an embittered parent whose child has been violated” I do not follow your line of reasoning as this point was not Paul’s in Romans 9 nor do I see your logic in it. If a precious little child is tragically violated, I do not know why a parent is going to be thinking about Election AT ALL at that point. In other words, tragic circumstances do not define whether or not someone is one of the Elect; they MAY be even though they were victimized. Consider the Church to whom Peter was writing: Nero was burning them alive, having them thrown to lions for public sport and young women WERE being publicly violated.
I did not intend to imply perfection by asserting the need for proper exegesis; I am most certainly fallible, as we all are. It is for THIS REASON that we need TO STRIVE FOR pure exegesis BY USING a l-g-h hermeneutic which NECESSARILY “puts space” between what WE THINK the Scriptures “ought” to say…and what they ACTUALLY say. My “challenge” there was really a tongue-in-cheek response to your challenge in an earlier post. ;)
Concerning Paul and his use of the Hosea passage, I would say that I agree that he did not use a l-g-h hermeneutic because true apostles did not need such a tool of biblical interpretation when they were being used of the Holy Spirit to write Scripture. I acknowledge that you did say that “it came by revelation, filtered through his understanding of his own people’s history.” We, however, are NOT apostles and DO need such interpretive tools as we seek guidance from the Holy Spirit. And when you say, “When you or I try to follow suit, prooftexting to support our argument, do we think we are following in Paul's footsteps?” I would answer by acknowledging that we (ANYONE in the Church) are NOT called to write Scripture (as Paul did, that is, “following in his footsteps”), that is to say, that while Paul wrote (some of) the Scriptures, the saints are called to UNDERSTAND them. I would also say that prooftexting isn’t an error (as I understand your statement to imply) IF we have and continue to diligently study the Whole of Scripture and have a basic understanding of how the Scriptures relate to themselves. I DO acknowledge that erroneous prooftexting (especially without context) happens all the time, as you mentioned. I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point.
When you said, “Finally, I wasn't trying to polemicize against the sovereignty of God. The goal was to present the possibility that His sovereignty and our free choice coexist— a ‘simultaneous truth’ to borrow your term” I would answer that, by careful and consistent study of the Scriptures, the OVERARCHING principal taught is that, while man DOES have the capacity/responsibility to make all kinds of decisions (that he is ABLE to make)—decisions for which he is utterly culpable—man DOES NOT possess AUTONOMOUSLY freewill such as God possesses. Read Romans 8:5-9 (especially verses 7&8) as it teaches NOT that BELIEVERS can sometimes act in the flesh (as many in the Church say this passage teaches…although Believers CAN act in the flesh), rather it teaches that NO ONE has the ABILITY to please God (by making “right decisions” or in any other way) UNLESS the Holy Spirit RESIDES IN THEM as verse 9 makes clear. In other words, only people who ALREADY belong to God can “choose rightly” in any given scenario.
And I appreciate YOUR ENERGY in this discussion, too. Anyone who is not looking to pop psychology for answers to biblical questions has my admiration and respect. It has been a pleasure to dialogue with you; I hope to be able to post in the future as well.
For anyone reading these posts, my wife and I would covet the prayers of the saints regarding her back condition (hopefully, after posting so much, no one will wonder why I would ask for prayer if God is sovereign). My wife’s name is Terry; our prayer is that the Lord would glorify His Name through her, ESPECIALLY while she lives through the intense pain of this trial (she has had extremely bad experiences with pain meds). We are also asking the Lord for great perseverance, grace and wisdom with which to proceed day by day. Sincere thanks.
It is clear that the logic of justice has been suspended as we are all guilty of sin. This is difficult to accept when there are so many bad people and bad events. We cry out when the “bad” people go unpunished and “bad” things happen to “good” people. We keep forgetting to confess that we are all “bad” people. So we cry out when the “really bad” people go unpunished and forget God’s mercy on “good” people who are just as condemned by Law. Jonah is a good story about our desire to see the bad guys punished.
Paul writes of this in Hebrews 8. The conclusion is that the old covenant of Law is obsolete and our sins are not only forgiven, but will be forgotten. This is something to think about when considering the all-knowing God. Out of love, God has chosen to forget our sins.
In 1Corinthians 6:12, Paul notes that all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. Again, in 1Corinthians 10: 23, all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful or constructive. Paul is specific about things that are helpful or constructive to the glory of God and the body of Christ, rather than the individual. Divorce is one of those things that was made lawful when our hearts were hard (Matthew 19:8). We can see that divorce is lawful, but not helpful or constructive to the glory of God and the body of Christ.
To the afflicted, Paul reminds us that God will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear (1Corinthians 10:13). This does not say that temptation will be removed… only that we will be given the strength to deal with temptation. Dealing with temptation is then a choice rather than an affliction. Back in 1Corinthians 6:12, Paul notes that all things are lawful, but he will not be driven by temptation. And in Job, the issue is not affliction but Job’s unshakeable love for God.
Post a Comment