I want to confront the idea of divine-determinism. This topic recently arose among friends of
mine and it got me thinking about how I might articulate why I disagree with
determinism and if it provokes dialogue or rebuttal, well that is also welcome.
Before continuing, however, know
that I am fully aware of the neuroscience-world’s discovery that determinism
and freewill may be moot points because we do not make decisions like we think
we do, or possibly at all (That’s right, my wife is so wrong about me). While I fully believe they have shown us to
be severely restrained by our genetics, neurons, physical limitations and
emotional baggage, I have trouble believing that we can definitively prove we
are completely incapable of choice and moral responsibility. The fact that we
can distinguishably desire right and feel wronged and consciously influence situations
one way or another seems to point to something deeper happening, but right now
I am presupposing this not proving it (See Malcolm Jeeves Minds, Brains, Souls and Gods or Bill Newsome’s work at www.testoffaith.com for more on this
topic).
TULIP… No, not the flower
One of Christianity’s main
advocates for divine-determinism was John Calvin who believed God was
micromanaging/orchestrating everything good and bad. This can be seen in his
“five point” T.U.L.I.P. doctrine:
1. Total Depravity (Humanity is so sinful that we are incapable of
desiring, thinking, doing, or being good. Only God’s will can accomplish that. Hmm not sure this is consistent with the
Atheists, Buddhists, or other non-Christians who have an intrinsic desire for
good, but it might be might be more arguable if you give up the next doctrine);
2. Unconditional Election (God elects those of his own choosing for
good and salvation while others are created for evil and hell. Wow that sounds more like a demented
tormentor than a God who loves his creation);
3. Limited Atonement (Jesus only died for the elect. Was
Jesus aware of this in Jn. 3:16-17?);
4. Irresistible Grace (Those elected cannot resist God’s grace as it irresistibly/forcefully
draws only them to himself. Didn’t Jafar try something similar in
Aladdin? That didn’t turn out well);
5. Perseverance of the Saints (You cannot lose your salvation, also known
as once saved always saved. Honestly I wish this one was true, but
unfortunately I cannot scripturally defend it).
Despite my snarky attitude against Calvin’s
heresies, my bigger point is that his view did not stem from a right
understanding of God’s sovereignty and providence, but rather Calvin might be
guilty of proof-texting the Bible (that is, isolating verses out of context
that seemingly offer an absolute resolution to what are complex issues.
God is out of Control
Before looking at the seemingly
“deterministic” scriptures (in the next post), it must first be said that
deterministic thinking in which God preplans good alongside pain, evil and
suffering to somehow show off his glory paints a picture of God that is
incompatible with good, love and God’s other character-revelations in
scripture. God entered into our pain,
evil and suffering and through it decisively defeated it and inaugurated the
vanquishing process of those things, but it was not what he intended for any of
us.[1] So, am I saying that God is not
in total control of the situation? In
point of fact I am! This can be seen
throughout the Bible from God’s response to the fall, to the prophets and on to
the Messiah.
Sin
First, the very fact that God is
not happy about Adam and Eve’s disobedience leads me to think he did not plan
it (Gen.3:11-19). It is as simple as
that. How could he be that angry toward
them or Sodom and Gomorrah (or any other sinner) for behaving the way he created
them to?
Prophets
Second, the prophets consistently
come with words of warning for the people to turn from their wickedness so that
calamity and exile does not occur (like Jonah and Nineveh or any of the
pre-exilic prophets). God has seemingly
taken the risk of relinquishing control and giving us choice and freedom, but
as moral agents we are participants in God’s creative activity which has the
same potential for good as it does for evil.
This could not be any clearer than
in Jeremiah. He constructs many “if” and
“if not” statements revealing an undetermined/open future. Much of dialogue
between God and Jeremiah indicates that there are actions that are good and
lead to life, but there are also ways that are harmful toward creation and
carry weighty consequences that God does not wish for Israel or their enemies
(Jer. 12:14-17; 17:24-27; 21:8-10; 22:1-5; 38:17-18). As Terence Fretheim puts it:
the people are
given choices that will shape their future, which in turn will shape the future
of all other creatures as-well-as the future of God (God will do different
things depending on what the creatures do)…
God “plants” the people, but it is they who take root, grow and bring
forth fruit (Jer. 12:2). What creatures
“grow up into” and the fruit they bear makes a difference both for themselves
and for their world, for good or for ill… pleasant portion or a desolate
wilderness (12:10).[2]
If this is the way the way in which the Creator relates to
his creatures within the world, then determinism and micromanaging is not the
“system” God set forth.
Jesus
Last to
this are Jesus and even his followers.
If we are to actually believe that Jesus is the visible image of God
(Col. 1:15) and God’s determinism is the governing factor, then those who
talked about Jesus got him wrong. Jesus’
language should have been different. For
example, instead of saying that God sent him so that whoever believes in him
can have eternal life, he should have said those who I am irresistible to (or
some similar clause) will have eternal life, but because the Father did not make everyone for
good purposes it is not all inclusive (Jn. 3:15-17).
Then Paul could have avoided those
embarrassing statements such as “we” (in a general sense) are God’s workmanship
created for good works (Eph. 2:10) and that those who God foreknew (which is
everyone who had the potential of being born) he chosen to become like Christ. And
Peter could have gotten it right and said that God wishes for some (instead of
no one) to parish (2 Pet. 3:9) and apparently a lot considering the salvation
road is narrow and the destructive path is wide (Matt. 7:13). So also, it makes little sense for us to love
our enemies and pray for those who curse us (Matt. 5:45) or even pray for
anyone at all because the course is set and it cannot deviate (Gen. 10:12-14;
Phil. 1:19; Eph. 6:18).
The point is Jesus never made
people’s salvation about predetermined-election. Read each Gospel in its
entirety and it is clear that God had good news for everyone, those elected were
chosen to bear the responsibility of the other nations knowing that good news,
but were never sole recipients of it (Isa. 49:6). More importantly, God’s love and relational
essence with his creation is evident, but determinism only opposes such a God.
It is, however, consistent with preprogrammed machines. (Stay tuned for prt. 2)
[1]
I cringe at the thought that any parent has ever been told the loss of their
child was because of God’s “love” and/or greater plan. Not your sick child, not the Sandy Hook
massacre, not one act of terrorism, not the Hiroshima/Nagasaki atrocity, not the
earthquake of Haiti was God’s “greater” plan at work. Pain and loss was never part of God’s plan.
It was the result of a broken creation and the creation’s enslavement to sin (1
Jn. 5:19-20). It doesn’t mean that we
are not more inclined to listen to God and become teachable in vulnerable
situations. It also does not mean that God won’t bring good out of bad, but it
was not planned for the greater purpose. God’s plan has always worked toward
life and good and when bad comes apart from his will. What’s more is he rarely
delivers us from it, but actually delivers us through it, even when death is
the final result.
[2]
Terence Fretheim. God and World in the
Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon
Press, 2005), 172.
No comments:
Post a Comment