40 Bicycles

In my previous post on the subject of election I promised to address some of the questions that I might have raised regarding the comprehensive nature of God’s eternal decree. This is what I now intend to do. Sorry for the delay. Looking back over my previous post, I am afraid that I might have expressed myself badly in a number of places. Whilst my thought has not changed substantially on the subject, my language needs to be clearer. I apologize for any confusion that may have arisen from this. My thoughts on this subject are necessarily limited. They are intended to be suggestive, not definitive. I am only at the beginning of my theological thinking and am sure that I would be far better qualified to address this subject after having engaged in study for 50 years more. I am no philosopher (by any stretch of the imagination!) and this subject has led me to touch certain areas in which I would prefer not to manifest my gross ignorance. Nevertheless, all of this being said, I aspire to read my Bible as a simple Christian and express its truths as a simple Christian. As I believe that the Bible addresses simple people such as me, I believe that simple people can understand the core of what the Bible wants us to know on the subject of the eternal decree and its relationship to history (if not all of its implications). The more that I come in contact with the general approach that Reformed theologians take to the subject, the more I am struck by its tendency to leave me with a very different impression than the biblical text does. General Reformed theology appears to lack harmony with the spirit of the text, even if it appeals to the letter in its defence. At this stage I must state that my problem is more with a popular way of viewing the doctrine of the comprehensive eternal decree, and less with the doctrine per se. For this reason I want to suggest other ways of viewing the truths that this doctrine is designed to protect so that the misunderstandings that can so easily arise from it can be sidestepped. To begin with, I would like to re-establish the points on which I find myself in agreement with the Reformed tradition. Firstly, I believe that God is sovereign over everything. I do not believe in any autonomous realm. The idea that ‘chance’ could have any reality is the greatest threat to the biblical doctrine of God. Secondly, and more specifically, I do not believe that man has a ‘free’ will if what is meant by this is an ‘autonomous’ will. Thirdly, I do not believe that my salvation can be attributed to anything apart from God’s sovereign grace. What assurance could I have if I did? Fourthly, God’s sovereignty should not be seen as a terror as God’s sovereignty is personal, not capricious. God’s universal and comprehensive sovereignty is a comfort to the Christian. Fifthly, the freedom of man is not opposed to the sovereignty of God. Man is truly free because God is truly sovereign. I believe that compatibilism is the biblical way to describe the relationship between God’s will and man’s will. They do not operate on the same plane; God is the Creator and man is the creature. If man was surrounded by chance none of his decisions would have reliable consequences. God, by securing the process of cause and effect, grants man freedom that he would not enjoy in an Arminian universe. Sixthly, God has exhaustive foreknowledge. Open theism is a dangerous heresy. I will now move on to my critique. It will be noticed that many of my criticisms are directed at misunderstandings or misuses of the language of the comprehensive eternal decree and not so much at the idea itself (although I will criticize it as well). However, I believe that these misuses and misunderstandings are so widespread as to merit a re-examination of our language. I. A Tabula Rasa decree A common understanding of the comprehensive eternal decree results in man being treated as a tabula rasa. By saying, ‘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 III.1) we can leave ourselves wide open to a particular misunderstanding (admittedly, the Westminster Confession goes on qualify this statement in important ways). The crucial problem with the statement above is that it fails to make a distinction between the manner in which God decrees particular events. When God decreed that Adam should fall, was His decree that Adam as a man created in the image of God living within the Garden of Eden, with Eve as his wife, would fall? Or was the decree that Adam as an abstract potential man would fall? I hope that people see the difference. This discussion is closely related to traditional discussions about infra- and supra-lapsarianism. I hope to offer some suggestions regarding ways to move beyond these debates later on. What I would maintain is that there are decrees within decrees. When God decreed Adam’s fall He was not writing something on a blank slate. No. When God decreed Adam’s fall He was decreeing something with regard to a real person, with a real nature, real hopes, real desires, etc. As the Westminster Confession rightly points out, no violence was offered by God to the will of Adam or to his liberty or to the contingency of secondary causes. God had already established the boundaries within which the decree of the fall would have to operate by His decree of creation. For many people like me, the way in which Reformed theologians are often inclined to express the doctrine of the comprehensive eternal decree leaves us with an impression of fatalism and of the futility of history. History is a fait accompli in the eternal decree of God and it is meaningless for us to do anything. My solution is to reject the language of the comprehensive eternal decree. I would like to explain why I think that this rejection is justified. God the Father from all eternity unchangeably ordained that He would glorify His Son. This determination has, as its necessity, the very Trinitarian being of God Himself. To this end He determined (amongst all of the possible ways He could have done it) to do it through the creation of the world and men. This determination does not have the necessity that the first decree possesses (i.e. the necessity of God’s own being) but is a free determination of the will of God. Every decree following the creating decree (and arguably even that) is in a real sense not an ‘eternal’ decree. When God decreed to save me, this decree was situated within the constraints of time and space that had been established by the creating decree. It was certainly not an ‘eternal’ decree in the full sense. The context of the decree was temporal creation, not eternity. For this reason I suggest that we abandon the language of a ‘comprehensive eternal decree’ as unhelpful and seek to put something else in its place. I will continue this critique, Lord-willing, in following posts.