40 Bicycles

This is a continuation of my thoughts on the idea of the comprehensive eternal decree. Within this post I suggest an alternative model by which we can think of God's sovereignty. II. A meaningless soup of decrees I was reading Gordon Clark’s book, The Incarnation, last week and a particular statement in it really shocked me:—

Suppose we ask, “Could God have created a larger, or a smaller, number of mosquitoes than this world annoyingly contains?” The answer is, “No, he could not.” God is eternal and immutable. His eternal plan for the universe specifies a fixed total number of the pesky things.

Gordon Clark identifies the necessity of the number of pesky things in the universe with the necessity of God’s own nature. In my understanding this undermines the fact that God is free in his decree. Furthermore, if Clark were right, God’s will would be imposed upon history, rather than worked out in history. I do not see how this position differs significantly from fatalism or hard determinism. A further problem with this view is that no clear distinction between the importance of different decrees is given. The danger with many people’s conception of the comprehensive eternal decree is that it is static. God’s decree is effectively that all things should take place exactly as they take place. Every event becomes an end in itself, rather than being subordinated to one overarching purpose. History becomes a meaningless soup of predetermined events. I will later try to demonstrate how my understanding of election allows us to avoid these problems. III. The decree and sin As we have seen, one of the greatest dangers in the language of the comprehensive eternal decree is that the teleological structure of God’s decree tends to be ignored. The means that God uses to achieve His ends can become ends in themselves. God’s decree that one particular person would be saved and God’s decree that I would make x number of spelling mistakes in this post are not adequately distinguished from each other, as language of a comprehensive eternal decree lacks an explicit teleological framework. The danger is that we might view all of God’s decrees on the same level and fail to recognize that they form a unified whole, with certain decrees ‘within’ others and certain more important decrees taking precedence over less important ones. Some might argue that speaking of a ‘comprehensive eternal decree’ explicitly states the unity of the decree. I am willing to grant this. Reformed theologians have generally stressed this. However, the way that the doctrine has been used has often undermined this, as I will attempt to show. The language is still problematic and confusing for many other reasons. If understood correctly, the language is not without value. However, the almost universal misunderstandings to which it has given rise cause me to question whether we should retain it. An eternal comprehensive decree can cause problems in its relationship to the sin of individuals. God is not the author of sin. If we are to make sense of God’s decree that certain individuals should commit particular sins we must argue that the individuals are the authors of the particular sins. However, if we view this decree in isolation from prior decrees we end up with God writing on a blank slate. God is the author of the sin in a sense that He would not be had the decree that the person would sin presupposed a creating decree and other decrees that make the sinner more than an empty possibility. We must also maintain that the righteous God does not will the sin in the same sense as He wills works of righteousness. But this necessitates that the sin can be in no sense an end in itself for God. Again this forces us to distinguish sharply between the way that God decrees different things. Whilst almost every Reformed person would agree with all of this, I still see that there are problems with the way that people are inclined to formulate the doctrine. IV. The order of the decrees Certain decrees logically follow after other decrees. The decrees are ‘teleologically’ ordered, not ‘temporally’ ordered or ‘sequentially’ ordered. God’s decree is eternal and so we cannot speak of a ‘temporal’ order to it. By saying that the decrees are not ‘sequentially’ ordered, I mean that God does not order the decrees in terms of the sequential ordering of events of their outworking (either from the final event to the first event of the sequence or the other way around). By saying that the decrees are ‘teleologically’ ordered I mean that God’s decree is ordered in terms of ends and means. Below this final end, there are further subservient ends and so on, ad infinitum. The final end provides the overarching context in which the subordinate ends are arranged. These subordinate ends do not have to bear any relationship to the order in which they are enacted in history, but they do help us to understand history. As God’s decree is a ‘plan’ or ‘purpose’ we must use such a system if we are to understand it rightly. Plans can work in many different ways. Suppose that you are a potter. You might decide that you want to create a certain piece of pottery. In your mind’s eye you know exactly what you want this piece of pottery to look like, down to the finest detail. With this purpose in mind you set down to choosing the material and the tools which you will use to create this piece of pottery. The choice of the tools and material is subordinate to your final purpose, which is very specific. You can choose any material and tools that you want, so long as they can be worked to form the desired pottery. However, it can work another way. Again suppose that you are a potter. This time you have another purpose. You look around your workshop and you see some very poor quality material. You pick up some broken tools. You determine to demonstrate your skill by crafting this low grade material into the most beautiful of vessels, using only broken tools. Whilst, in the first example, the final vessel took priority over the material and tools within the teleological structure of the plan, in the second example this order is reversed. Both of these plans will be worked out in a sequence of events as the materials and tools are gathered together, and then as the material is worked into the final vessel by means of the tools. To the person who does not know the mind of the potter these two sequences may not appear significantly different. However, to the person who knows the mind of the potter there are very important differences. In the first case, the potter is primarily thinking backwards from the final highly specific plan to the materials and tools that he will need. In the second case, the potter is primarily thinking forwards from the highly specific tools and materials chosen to a beautiful vessel. In the second case the materials chosen have teleological priority over the exact final form of the vessel. Although the creation of a beautiful vessel may be your ultimate purpose, the exact form that this vessel will take is a thing which is of less importance to the potter than the choice of the materials. In a teleological order different purposes are subordinated to other purposes. Again, we need to remember that this subordination is not in any way to be confused with the temporal sequence in which the plan will be enacted. Whilst the primary or ultimate purpose is only fully realized in the last element within the temporal sequence in which the plan is enacted, the primary purpose should not in principle be identified with the last element of the temporal sequence. The last element may be only one among many possible ways of fulfilling the primary purpose. Of course, the ultimate purpose may be identical with the last element. In the first example of the potter, this sort of scenario existed—the primary purpose was very specific and the first elements of the temporal sequence were unspecified. However, in the second example, the primary purpose (to form a beautiful vessel) was vague and the first elements of the temporal sequence was very specific. I think that an understanding of this sort of teleological structure can help us to understand God’s decree. Let us look at the example of the potter again. This time let us presume that the potter is omnipotent and all-determining. We will try to reassess the first example in the light of this hypothetical potter. The potter has a very specific plan for the final piece of pottery. However, as he is omnipotent and all-determining, he could just will this piece of pottery into existence. He is not in any way constrained by the limitations of means because he can will means perfectly suited for the task into existence. Indeed, he does not even need any means. The only thing that he is limited by is the specific form of the final piece of pottery he has purposed. Let us now look at the second potter example with our hypothetical potter. The potter has a specific purpose. However, this specific purpose relates primarily to the material and tools that he has decided to use (rather than the final form of the piece of pottery). The potter determines to use these means and to limit himself by their limitations. The final form of the pottery will be determined largely by the skill of the potter in his use of his poor materials. V. What does this all mean? There are different forms of determinism that people hold to. One form is natural determinism that holds that anyone who knew every fact in the universe at this moment could predict all that would follow—And the first Morning of Creation wrote / What the Last Dawn of Reckoning shall read. For others the future may determine the present. We are powerless in the face of destiny and have no way of avoiding it. I believe that the Bible teaches a form of determinism that differs significantly from both of these forms. The Bible teaches that everything is determined by God’s will. However, as I have tried to demonstrate, the way that a will determines things differs markedly from either of the two previously mentioned forms of determinism. In a will, things are determined by a teleological sequence, not by a causal sequence or by a sequence working from the future back into the present. In a teleological sequence and in its outworking, certain things are determined and certain other things are indeterminate depending on your vantage point from within the sequence. Returning to the first potter example, we can see that the final element in the sequence was determined before the first elements were determined. From the perspective of the final element, the first elements were not wholly determined. In the second potter example we see that the first elements in the sequence were determined before the last element was fully determined. From the perspective of the first elements, the final element was only partly determined. Let us take this back into our discussion of the comprehensive eternal decree. What I am arguing is as follows:—

1. If we are to speak of God’s comprehensive eternal decree we must speak of it as teleological in structure.
2. We have no warrant to presume that the first element of the teleological order of God’s decree is identical with the final element of the temporal sequence of the decree’s outworking.
3. There is biblical warrant to say that the final event in the temporal outworking is merely a member of a set of events that satisfy the first element of the teleological order of God’s decree.
4. In many cases the earlier elements in the temporal sequence have a higher priority in God’s decree than some of the later elements (e.g. 1 Corinthians 1:26-29).

History is the outworking of God’s eternal decree. We do not live in a Deist universe, God does not merely create the world and let it run autonomously. No, we have a God who is intimately involved with the universe. As we do not live in a closed system, or mechanical universe, we have to deny that the earlier determines the later. We are not natural determinists. The bonds of determination are teleological ones, not causal ones. The future does not determine the present, nor does the present determine the future. Both are personally determined by the free will of God. A purpose is teleologically structured and is not bound to follow the order of its temporal outworking. In a teleological sequence, determination can work from cause to effect, from effect to cause, or both ways simultaneously. From the perspective of a particular point within the teleological sequence, certain events are determined and certain other events are undetermined. What does this mean in practice? We are living in God’s universe. God’s universe is teleologically ordered (and consequently is meaningful). History is the outworking of God’s decree. From our vantage point within history certain events are contingent and certain are determined. There are some future events that really are contingent from our perspective and not just apparently so. From our perspective, within the outworking of God’s decree, the future is partly open and partly determined. Of course, as we are not God we do not know how open the future is. This openness of the future does not mean that it is unknown to God, or that it is undetermined by Him. Every event in history occurs by the will of God. However, the will of God with respect to certain events is partly undetermined from the perspective of prior events in the teleological order. The heart of the problem, in my opinion, can be seen in the Westminster Confession of Faith’s expression of this doctrine:—

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass…

The problem with this statement is that it expresses God’s comprehensive eternal decree as an action of the past. This is our big problem. How do we express our relationship to eternity? I do not deny a comprehensive eternal decree. However, I do not temporally qualify this eternal decree. If you said that a comprehensive eternal decree exists in the present, I would disagree. It may take a while to understand exactly what I am trying to get at here, because I am rather poor at expressing myself. History is the outworking of God’s eternal decree. However, God’s decree is not itself an historical event. We cannot relate to God’s comprehensive eternal decree as it is in itself because we are temporal creatures. We cannot properly speak of God’s comprehensive decree as past, present or future. Nonetheless, we can relate to God’s decree as it is being worked out in history. I have already argued that there is a teleological structure to God’s comprehensive eternal decree. This teleological structure means that there are ‘decrees within decrees’ and these decrees are not bound to follow a temporal sequence, even a reverse temporal sequence (think about the way that an author plans a novel). By speaking of the decree of God as a past event from our perspective we have fallen into the trap of temporalizing an eternal decree. As a result we have made the future wholly determinative upon the present. This is the problem that many people, myself included, have with the general manner of speaking about a comprehensive eternal decree. As a teleological sequence can work both forwards and backwards in a temporal sequence we should learn to look at the future as partly open and yet to be determined by God’s free sovereignty exercised in history. Although everything is known and determined by God in eternity, as we learn to see history as the outworking of God’s eternal decree, we will be able to say that God makes decisions within history. One of the most dissatisfying results of viewing everything as the result of a decree that has already occurred from our perspective is that God’s sovereignty in history is downplayed, as is His sovereign grace. God never truly responds to His creation; He only appears to respond. This problem is seen in Calvinistic discussions of such subjects as prayer. It is often argued that God has ordained prayer as a means to the end of blessing His people. The difficulty with this is that the teleological necessity is presumed by many to flow wholly backwards in time. This leads to the mentality: ‘If God wants to bless us, He will make us pray’ rather than ‘Let us pray so that God may bless us’. God is certainly sovereign in both cases. However, the manner in which this sovereignty is exercised is very different. I believe that we should move beyond talking about a comprehensive eternal decree as it is so easily misunderstood. In its place I suggest that we reemphasize God’s providential dealings in history working towards His ultimate purpose in Christ. This purpose itself is not comprehensive, in the sense that it does not specifically stipulate every aspect of its fulfilment. However, God’s sovereignty in history is comprehensive in working all things towards this end. We must then work because God uses us as instruments to achieve His purpose. If we focus upon the historical providence of God in this sense we will be able to follow the outworking of salvation history more easily. Before the coming of Christ, the devil was the ruler of this world in a sense that he is not now. I am concerned that Calvinists have tended to downplay this by the way in which they have understood the eternal decree of God. God is sovereign today to a degree that He was not 2000 years ago. I propose that my model of the decree provides a way for us to begin to take this seriously. God-willing I will continue this critique at a later date.