40 Bicycles

To clarify what I am, and what I am not, saying I would like to take one post in which to briefly express where I am coming from on this issue. I have found, in personal correspondence, that although some people have understood my point, others think that I am denying important truths of the Reformed faith. For this reason I think that it would be helpful for me to once again articulate where I am coming to this issue from. In my second post I asked for my reader's patience as my thought is in the process of reformation on this issue. As I have thought through the subject I would change certain of the wording of earlier posts. However, I would not change anything of substance. It should be remembered that not all of my points are criticisms of the general Reformed doctrine of election (GRDE). Many of the points that I am making are maintained by those who hold to the GRDE. For example, I know of no theologian teaching the GRDE who believes in fatalism. However, I know of some who come dangerously close to a hard determinist position (e.g. Gordon Clark). What I am primarily seeking to do in my critique of the language of the comprehensive eternal decree is to challenge particular ways of looking at it. I would reject the terminology. However, my reasons for doing so are complicated. Under certain circumstances the terminology of a 'comprehensive eternal decree' could be of use. The concept is not wrong per se. However, the amount of misunderstanding that it can give rise to causes me to question its use. Another reason why I have rejected the terminology is that I believe that the Bible provides us with a way of looking at the truth of a comprehensive eternal decree whilst avoiding some of the pitfalls that can result when we temporalize eternity. I believe that the Bible presents us with the categories of God's final purpose (which does not stipulate every historical detail) and God's comprehensive and exhaustive sovereignty in history (which conforms every historical detail to the more general purpose). Some might argue that there is no substantial difference between this and a comprehensive eternal decree. There are important differences, however. I trust that these will become more clear when I apply this understanding to the subject of election. The heart of the problem with speaking about a comprehensive eternal decree is that we can get mixed up when we try to relate this decree to history. Although history is the outworking of the decree, it is unhelpful to think of history as temporally subsequent to the decree. I am arguing that if we use a teleological model to help us to understand the decree we can avoid many potential dangers and can make history all the more meaningful. At the moment my posts are not explicitly addressing the GRDE. I am laying a foundation for my critique of the GRDE in future posts. Just because I criticize a particular position (or a particular misunderstanding of a position), it does not follow that I believe that many (or any) proponents of the GRDE hold it. The analogy of an author writing a book has been suggested by some (e.g. John Frame and Norman Shepherd) as a way in which to understand dual causality (God's causing an event and us causing an event). I think that this analogy is helpful (although all analogies are limited). I suggest that we pay close attention to the manner in which a writer writes a book as a more viable pattern for understanding God's decree. The writer is completely sovereign over the book. As no stage can the book dictate the next page to the writer. However, the writer does not necessarily plan the book in order in which the events will occur (or even in the reverse order). He may have a very clear idea of how the story will finish before he determines the exact personality development of the characters. He may have determined the personality of the main protagonist before he has determined exactly how the story is to end. Teleological determination does not follow a linear historical pattern. A purpose with the teleological order 1,2,3,4,5,6 may be historically enacted as 4,3,5,2,6,1. I am suggesting that God's purpose follows this sort of pattern. Of course, many purposes can meet in one event. Also the first purpose may be made more specific by the fifth purpose in the teleological order. This can happen as an author writes a novel. However, one of the main things that I am trying to maintain is that the beginning of the historical sequence does not presuppose that all of the future elements of the historical sequence are determined, i.e. if '4' starts the historical sequence '5' and '6' are in some sense yet to be determined. I am arguing that if we view history this way we will understand God's working in history in a more dynamic way. God truly 'responds' to us — in much the same way as an author can 'respond' to his characters. The characters, under the control of the writer, can exert a determinative effect upon the conclusion of the story. This is certainly not autonomous freedom, but it does constitute a level of freedom that many seemingly undermine. If we believe that the future is already completely written we feel powerless in the face of it. However, if we realize that, in the hands of the Great Author, we can have an effect on it (because of the difference between teleological and historical order) we will avoid fatalism in our approach. Some might argue that I am neglecting the fact that we are in the outworking of the decree and not in the decree itself. However, even granting this I do not see a significant difference. Let us presume that an author has planned every sentence of his book before ever putting pen to paper. In this plan he still 'responds' to the characters. The characters are not blank slates throughout the development of the story. There are many who treat reprobation as if God determined, 'I want to reprobate some people, let us create some reprobate-able people'. The people are treated as blank slates to be written on. However, it is possible (if we follow a teleological order) to say that reprobation is a response to the sinfulness of man, rather than a decree to create men to be reprobated. Much of this can be seen in the infra-/supra- debates. Moving on, I would like to reaffirm certain truths before I end:—

1. No event occurs without God having willed it.
2. Man has no autonomous freedom.
3. God's grace is sovereign. God does not save us because of anything He has foreseen in us.
4. Although the future is to a degree 'open', when we understand the teleological order of events, this does not mean that it is a realm of chance. God determines how the future is to be 'closed', not chance or autonomous man.
5. Openness of God theology is heretical.
6. God's foreknowledge is a knowledge that determines what will come to pass. It does not just 'foresee' it.

In conclusion I would ask my reader to show Christian charity as they read through this material. Please take me at my word: I do not mean to overturn anything the Reformed church has held to be precious. If you want to maintain God's sovereignty, I am with you all the way. If you want to maintain the monergistic character of salvation, I'm with you there too. I merely want to restate the doctrine of election in such a way as to avoid certain of the misunderstandings that the GRDE leads to or contains. Sometimes you can try to make what you are not maintaining 110% clear and there will still be people who claim that you teach it. Take N.T. Wright and works'-salvation as a classic case. Wright can deny this position until he's blue in the face but still the majority of many Reformed denominations will accuse him of holding the position. Why is this the case? I have two answers. The more charitable one of the two (and probably the nearest to the truth) is that people have become so accustomed to thinking in set categories that they are unable to deal with a position that defies these categories. They presume that it must fit in one of (say) two categories and fail to recognize that it is a third way and really fits in neither of the two. I trust that people will be willing to give me the benefit of any doubt and try to understand exactly what I am claiming without jumping to conclusions.