Theological Ramblings

A very important question has been raised in our discussion, so before I go on to my next post, I think it bears addressing. The question is about human responsibility in light of the sovereignty of God and his electing purpose. How can Calvinism be true and man be responsible for his actions?

Objection 1: It seems that Calvinism is defeated by the fact of human responsibility, for under Calvinism man is not ultimately the determiner of his own destiny, thus he cannot be said to be responsible. If we are chosen not according to our actions or choice, as Calvinists would suggest, then we are not being held responsible. But since we are held responsible, Calvinism is necessarily precluded

Objection 2: It would be unjust for any ruler to require something from a subject for which he will be held responsible when it is ultimately the ruler who determines the compliance of the subject. Under Calvinism, God (the ruler) ultimately determines whether the man (subject) complies with His righteous requirement.

On the Contrary: Both doctrines are clearly taught in Scripture (John 6:65; John 10; Romans 9; Ephesians 1; Matthew 25; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20). Since we know the Bible to be a book devoid of contradiction, these two truths must both be true. We therefore are called to believe them, even if we must hold them in paradox.

I Answer That: Calvinism is not defeated by the fact of human responsibility. I certainly understand the difficulty in accepting this fact. Any time one contemplates the tension between God’s sovereignty and our free will, she is in for a long hard struggle to which there is no easy conclusion. They are simply both true! That’s the best answer I can give right now for that tension.

It’s very similar with this tension between responsibility and determinism - mostly because both are natural corollaries of free will and sovereignty. They must be held in some sort of paradox or tension. I think, though, that once we understand the nature of our depravity (which I will discuss at length later), we begin to see that we’re asking the wrong question! When we realize our inability to produce any kind of salvation on our own, it dawns on us that God’s not forcing anyone to do anything - believe or not believe. I know, I know… Yes, I believe in “Irresistible Grace”, I’ll explain that better later. But before you get there I have to lay the foundation of depravity first. We are completely unable to come to God on our own.

So our question should be “Why doesn’t God help all become saved? Why’d he choose only some?” Reprobation does not work in that God says, “I choose these people to go to Hell. Write their names down now.” No, reprobation is the indirect result of election in that those whom God did not chose are reprobate. He chose some to be elect, and the others are indirectly reprobate. He must do this for three reasons:

1. God’s glory is shown when He shows mercy and compassion, yes, but it is also shown when he punishes sin, and it is most starkly shown when there is a contrast between the two. So God chooses only some so that the mercy he shows them will contrast the wrath he shows others and there is the maximum of God’s glory displayed.
2. If God never carried out punishment for sins, and never exacted vengeance/judgment on anyone, then none of the promises he made could ever be taken seriously. Not only could we not believe the ones related to punishing sins, but the credibility lost there would hinder us from being able to trust anything he promised.
3. God cannot do anything which would violate his own nature. Since in his nature, he is both vengeful/just/wrathful (a fact for which he ought to be worshiped! But I digress….) and merciful/compassionate/gracious. Therefore, he must do both. So God could not exact vengeance on everyone, for then he would not be merciful. Conversely, he could not forgive everyone because he would then not be just. He must do both, and so he chose some for election, indirectly choosing others for reprobation.

This is a sufficient response to Objection 1.

Response to Objection 2: From a human understanding of justice you are absolutely correct, but that is where it ends. Human justice is understood as the golden rule augmented by a punishment rubric. In some cases this is codified into law, with various punishments attached. “Do unto others…” is the very foundation of our legal system. I would not want someone to kill me, so I make it illegal to kill.

This is not, however, the proper understanding of justice when we talk about God, for God does not exist within our spectrum of understanding. So many times we try to use our understanding of things in order to explain or describe God, but when we try we find we really must redefine the terms we use. We must recalibrate our instruments, so to speak.

For God, justice is not the golden rule. Justice to God is doing whatever brings himself the most glory. This is why, I think, the moral law he defined is the way it is. Man was supposed to be his image, and we defiled it, but we’re still supposed to reflect him. Ultimately, since God is perfect, and the definition of justice, it is nonsense to suggest that anything God does is unjust!

But, so it cannot be thought that this question is anything new facing the Calvinists, let’s look back to the very first ‘Calvinist’ (no, I understand Calvin was born WAY after), Paul and see what happened to him in Romans 9. He had just gotten done saying one of the most Calvinistic sayings in the entire Bible in verses 10-13. Follow me here:

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

That’s stark! He had just said this, and he could feel the heat coming. So he heads it of in the following verses:

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

So we have to two objections in v. 14 and 19. “Is there injustice on God’s part?” and “Why does he still find fault?” And I like Paul’s answers. I like the first but the second is my favorite. His first answer is to remind us simply that he is God and completely free to do as he wills, when he told Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”

But the second one is the best. It just puts us back in our place. I mean this is shades of Job 38. Paul simply says, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’” What right do we have to accuse God of making a mistake? What right do we have of accusing God of injustice? Job got stuck here, and watch God’s masterful response:

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding!”

I can almost sense a righteous wrath seething through these words at the audacity of a human to question God’s sovereign will! Who are we to tell God he’s wrong???? Who are we even to ask these questions? Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just? (Genesis 18:25)

I end simply by saying, I understand the struggle here. I struggled with it for quite some time, and I can’t tell you how to figure it out. You simply have to seek God and seek His truth through the Word. He will reveal to you what He wants you to know. That’s the best I can say.