Memorable Quote

"Once you assume the gospel, you're already in danger of losing it."

D.A. Carson during an interview with Mike Horton of The White Horse Inn - October 2007

The Gospel As Law

In the theological circles in which I travel, most are aware of the recent discussion of Joel Osteen on The White Horse Inn. On the right side of this blog under "Places I Go" I have a link to their site. I am certain that it is not the intention of the White Horse Inn hosts, nor is it my intention to simply criticize and bash another man who at least calls himself a Christian. The intention is to protect the children of God from those things that are very dangerous. Though he smiles a great deal, though he communicates friendliness and concern through his soothing tone and his passive body language, his message, I'm afraid, is ultimately one that brings death.

Instead of the Law of a holy God: do all this and you shall live, he presents moralistic advise: just try a little harder and you'll get it right. Instead of the gospel of a merciful and just God: Christ has done for sinners all that God has commanded in His Law, he attempts to absolve his listeners of their guilt by advising them to obey God's commands and God will be obliged to make them happy. In the end, that presentation is just another form of law; there is no mention of Christ's work on our behalf: even on our behalf to give us joy, which it most certainly does. Though Osteen may mention Christ's death in some of his preaching, he does not attach it to the holy justice of God and His wrath against unbelievers, so the Osteen "gospel" becomes law. Instead of presenting the Law and commands of God: your sins have set you against God and His wrath is upon you, Osteen says, even if you don't think that you measure up, it's OK because God loves you anyway. Instead of presenting the good news: believe and repent of your sins, Osteen says: obey God's commands and He will lead you on the path of happiness and self-fulfillment.

While Joel Osteen's message is mingled with truth: God does love humanity, excessive self abasement is harmful (particularly if it does not drive one to the gospel), his presentation of "good news" is not all that good. Are you really telling us Pastor Joel, that the way we earn God's favor is by obeying His Law; the way we insure our "best life now" is to line ourselves up more strictly with a form of biblical moralism?

A few scripture come to my mind in this case:

Jude

3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 2

1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

I know some of my words seem harsh, but they are not nearly as destructive as the ignorance of the gospel which Olsteen's words promote.

Eight Revealing Questions: Question #8 & Conclusions: Installment #7

And finally, the last question to be asked (at least in this series) is:

Was my choice determined?

If I have answered the previous questions correctly and with biblical accuracy, then:

1. God does know my future choices; God knows all the future perfectly.

2. I do choose freely.

3. I cannot be forced to choose something that I do not want.

4. I make the choices I make based on my affections and my strongest desires.

5. My affections and God's decree are causes of the choices I make.

As we consider the choices I have already made:

6. I could never have chosen differently.

7. I cannot choose against the eternal decree of God.

Then the answer to question #8, was my choice determined is, yes. And it must be if God knows what He knows perfectly and those things He knows includes my choices, then my choice is necessarily predetermined. God has determined my future choice by His infallible decrees which are their primary cause, but He has also determined that I will make the choices I make based on my affections/desires/inclinations, which are the secondary causes of my choices. They are the means by which God will accomplish His ends through my free choices; and He has ordained both the means and the ends. Take once again the instance where I chose to turn left instead of right: if God knew I was going to turn left, even though there were various causes (secondary to His knowledge of my future choice and His decree of it) for my decision, and I ended up turning right--contrary to His knowledge--then we must either change our definition of the word know or God didn't actually know that I was going to decide to turn left.

After ruminating over these questions, I think it is clear how one ends up with an "open" view of God if one has rejected the orthodox view of providence, compatibilism and God's decrees and replaced it with an unorthodox view of libertarian free will (the view that claims that in order for the creature to make really free choices, in hindsight it must have had the ability to have chosen otherwise and cannot have been constrained by any determining cause...even its own desires and affections) the next "logical" step in such a system, in order to maintain one's consistency, is to say that God does not actually know my future choices, and if He did and if I couldn't have chosen otherwise, then my choices are never really free because they are constrained by God's knowledge of them and my affection toward, them based on my strongest desire.

What is further is that God's knowledge of future events, creatures and their choices is not subject to His observation of a future that exists outside of His decree. The set of events which we (bound in time) look forward to as future, and which we look back at and call history does not exist as an arbitrary object which God had to discover and about which He now submits His knowledge. NO, the reality is that time and history are subject to Him because He has ordained all their means and ends.

There are two sets of implications that can be drawn from this information:

Those conclusions which are subject to biblical evidence lead to the Reformed view of God's providence:

1. God knows my future choice perfectly, therefore my choice is predestined.

2. Because God has perfect knowledge of future events and choices, He necessarily must have decreed their occurrence.

3. God knows my future choice perfectly, therefore I can’t choose against His decree.

4. God knows my future choice perfectly, therefore I can’t choose differently; I cannot make a choice which is contrary to His decree.

Those conclusions about God's providence which are based solely in human sophistry lead to a non-Christian view of God.

1. If my choice is not predetermined then God cannot know my future choice perfectly.

2. If I can choose against the decree of God then He doesn’t actually know my future choice and thus has not decreed it.

3. If I can choose differently then God doesn’t know my future choice perfectly.

Eight Revealing Questions: Questions #5, #6 & #7: Installment #6

Question number five, what factors cause or determine our choices?

The answer to this question lies in the explanation given of the types of causes by which we are influenced, but the final answer to question number five is two-fold: our affections and God's decree; our affections are the factors that determine the choices we make, thus causing us to choose what we want, and God's decree causes or determines our choices. But these conclusions raise other questions.

We have seen that there are many influences to be considered as we ponder why we have made certain choices, but the immediate cause of our choice is ultimately our affections. Our affections may be altered by our surroundings and the influence that other creatures have over us. We also established that if I do not have the capacity to make a certain choice, I have ultimately not been coerced into choosing against my strongest desire because it is a choice that I am not capable of making, thus it cannot be the object of my strongest affection. We also saw that one of the causes of my choices (which remain free because I choose according to my desires and affections) is God's decree of that choice. Therefore we must ask the sixth and seventh questions: could we actually have chosen differently; can I chose against the decree of God?

The manner in which question #6 is asked makes it seem innocent and to answer in the negative would make it appear to be a violation of the creature's freedom, but a closer look at that particular phrasing should cause one to dive deeper into the question and re-ask it in a manner similar to question #7.

Question #6 is completely legitimate, could I actually have chosen differently? In answering this question it is helpful to consider once again, the causes of my choice. Let's return to the example where I was "forced" to turn left in my car. Would the material causes of my choice to turn left annihilate my ability to turn right? The existence of the road wouldn’t prohibit my turning right. The fact that I was in a car would not prohibit me from turning right if I had wanted to. My own existence would not preclude my turning right. So what about the efficient causes: my thought processes were some of the efficient causes for my turning left but they were not a cause to the exclusion of turning right. Even though the threat to my life caused me to turn left, I still could have turned right in the face of that risk, so from that stand point alone I could have chosen differently. By turning left, I might have still reached my destination even though I was forced to turn left when I would have considered a right turn the more efficient path to my destination. Even if turning left had been a dead-end, I could eventually have make a u-turn and finally arrived at my destination. The fact that I was at a “T” intersection when I turned left did not limit my choice to only turning left; I still could have turned right if I didn't allow the car-jacker to influence my decision. I even could have gone straight if I had been willing to run off the road. So we find that none of the material or efficient causes would have destroyed my ability to choose otherwise.

Next we explore the formal cause of my decision to turn left. Officially, the formal causes of my choice to turn left were the motivating factors of the situation: the gunman, and my desire to preserve my life, but neither of these destroyed my capacity to chose to turn right. So during the examination of all these different causes of my choice to turn left we find that, from the human, temporal perspective I could have turned right. But in hindsight we must also agree that my choice was fixed and because I did finally chose to turn left, we must deduce that I could not have chosen otherwise because of the final cause of my choice.

The final cause of my choice to turn left was not just my desire and affection to that direction and my desire to preserve my life, but ultimately, the answer to question #6 is no, and question #7 is that I could not have chosen otherwise because God decreed for it to happen. God knew it was going to happen, and if He knew I might turn left but I actually ended up turning right, then His knowledge of my choice would have been imperfect. Because God’s knowledge of the future is perfect I could not have chosen differently. So, can I choose against the decree of God? Well, if I have argued effectively in the last several sentences then we will see that the answer to this question is also no, and for the very same reasons. If we are able to choose contrary to the decree of God then He would no longer be God because He would be rendered impotent and without perfect knowledge.