Concurrence – In response to: Is God all knowing?
July 16th, 2009 by Bill HyerThis post is my resonse to Tamra’s question: Is God all knowing?
Your question is one that is the age old issue of how the will of God and the will (wills) of the creature interact or work together. There have been books written about this, but I will attempt in a few words to help bring you out of confusion.
This question is, significantly enough, asked in Scripture itself in Romans 9:19, “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’” (ESV). The context, as you may recognize, is that of the classic teaching of Scripture on election (9:11) and predestination (8:30). So you may take comfort in the fact that you are not alone in seeking to understand this issue. Also, and more importantly, the fact that you are asking the same question that Scripture asks means that you have understood the two principles that Scripture is revealing take place at the same time in the fabric of reality. Those two principles are the working of (1) the will of God and (2) the will of the creature. I can imagine Paul teaching in a Bible study group about the sovereignty of God or election and predestination as he writes in Romans 9 and someone raising their hand and saying, “Wait a minute Paul, I’m confused…” and asking your question. The point I am making is that it is because you are hearing what the Scripture actually teaches, that both God’s will and the creature’s will work at the same time, that this confusion arises in your mind.
I believe that the root cause of your confusion is what in logic is called bifurcation, which is the fallacy of assuming that there are two and only two alternatives for the solution of a problem. The two alternatives that are being assumed that give rise to the confusion is that it is either God’s will and predestination or man’s will and choice. People wrongly assume that is the way it must work. From this false assumption arise all the wrong implications of this, such as why pray or why evangelize – actually, why do anything for as Romans 9:19 says, “Who can resist His will?”
What the Scriptures teach is the doctrine theologians call “Concurrence” – a technical word that simply means “occurring at the same time.” Scripture teaches that both God’s will and man’s will work at the same time in the fabric of reality. It is like the warp and woof of a fabric and without both working together the fabric cannot exist – all you have is strings. We see this in many places in Scripture. Three of the greatest are Genesis 50:20, Isaiah 10:5-7, and Acts 2:23. What is important about these passages is that they declare that at the same time and in the same acts God is working out His will for His good purposes and people are choosing to do their actions with evil motives for which they are morally responsible. Genesis 50:20 says, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (ESV). This clearly says that in the same actions God chose and worked and man chose and worked, God’s work was good and man’s evil. Both wills worked in the very same act at the very same time, one was good, one was evil.
Now I believe the real problem people have with this not that both work together in the same act, one for good and one for evil, but how this happens. It is most often the case that, because people don’t understand the how, that they are confused and then do not accept the Scripture’s teaching concerning the that. However, this should not be a problem for a Christian since the essential foundational doctrines of the Christian faith have this very problem. We believe in the Trinity, one God Who eternally exists in three Persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We believe that this is the truth about God, but no one understands how this is. We believe that Jesus is the God-man, eternally God the Son Who took upon Himself human nature in time-space so that at the same time He had two natures, God and humanity, yet He was one Person. We believe that this is the truth about Christ, but no one understands how this is. The doctrine of the Person of Christ, two natures in one Person, is actually in essence a variation of the doctrine of God’s sovereign will (predestination) and human choice, two wills working in one act. If you as a Christian can believe, accept, and confess the essential truth about the Person of Christ (not understand, but believe, accept, and confess), then you should (and I say should) be able to believe and accept the Scriptures’ teaching about the doctrine of Concurrence.
I believe that it is also most significant that another example of this “problem” exists in physics and the nature of the universe. Physicists now know that two principles operate at the same time in the physical universe: General Relativity and Indeterminacy. General Reality was first taught by Einstein. In summary, it teaches that in the grand scheme of things, at the highest overall level, everything in the physical universe runs like a machine. For example, we can know the exact locations of all the planets and stars at any time. That is why we could send a man to the moon – we knew exactly where it would be. Indeterminacy, which deals with quantum mechanics, says that on the smallest level, no one can know where any quanta (the smallest particles of physical matter) will be. Physicists know that both of these principles are true of the reality of the physical universe and that these two principles seem to contradict each other. They know that these two principles are true but they don’t know how. One interesting thing about this is that Einstein, no slouch in intellectual ability, did not accept Indeterminacy because he didn’t understand how it would work with General Relativity!
Using physics as an example and illustration, General Relativity is like that of God’s sovereign will by which He has ordained and predestined everything that will happen, and Indeterminacy is like that of human choice (and every creature’s choice, for every creature – even a dog or a mosquito has creaturely choice). Both work at the same time. But what happens is that, like Einstein, people don’t understand how these work together and opt out for one or the other. To opt out for Predestination alone is to believe in Fatalism or what is theologically called Hyper-Calvinism. To opt out for man’s choice (free will) will inevitably lead one to remove from God His sovereign attributes, such as being all-knowing. Both options (the fallacy of bifurcation) are the result of seeking to understand with the capacity of one’s own brain power how the infinite, eternal God relates to limited, space-time creatures. It doesn’t matter how great one’s brain capacity is – a million gigabits – it is still limited. The fact is that the Bible teaches that both work at the same time – God works sovereignly and has preordained everything and human’s make actual moral choices that actually affect and influence the fabric of reality. Perhaps the best example of this is that immediately after teaching about predestination and election in Romans 9, Paul says that he prays for every Israelite to be saved (Romans 10:1). He didn’t allow a false implication to arise from a true principle. By the way, Romans is filled with Paul dealing with false implications of true doctrine – for example, “Shall we sin that grace may abound?” (6:1).
In conclusion, consider what Paul wrote in Philippians 2:12-13, “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (ESV). Both our will and God’s will work together for His good and sovereign pleasure. The Scriptures teach that this is what happens, but doesn’t reveal how. It is at places like this that we must take the counsel and example of Augustine to heart, “I believe, therefore I know.” May the LORD bless you. I hope this has been helpful.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Excellent response. I can’t add anything to that.
Thanks,
Neal
July 19th, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Interesting concept.
I disagree with “To opt out for man’s choice (free will) will inevitably lead one to remove from God His sovereign attributes, such as being all-knowing.” Free will is simply having the ability to act or refrain from acting. God knows every one of man’s decisions past, present and future. He is not surpised by any of it. I’m not sure how believing in free will disturbs God’s omniscience.
Just another observation – the brain talk. Christians should use the word mind instead of brain when talking about capacities to understand concepts. Saying the brain is a powerful million gigabit computer which can’t understand what we’re talking about is naturalist nonsense. We have a soul which contains the mind where free will originates. The brain does not have a “capacity” to understand anything. It’s a complex physical piece of anatomy like a liver or a lung. The mind is to the driver as the brain is to the car. They are not the same thing. We think with our mind, our intellect, and we are able to understand concepts quite well with it. The soul is immaterial and, unless the hardware (brain) is broken or defective, we can understand how God relates to his creatures through the Bible and Jesus Christ quite well.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Willed Induction,
Bill will be out of town for a while and won’t be able to respond.
I would like to comment on your disagreement with the quote “To opt out for man’s choice (free will) will inevitably lead one to remove from God His sovereign attributes, such as being all-knowing.”
I think you may have missed the point of the doctrine of concurrence. The quote that you disagree with is presented as the extreme of free-will (i.e. human free-will that overrides God’s sovereignty). The quote is set in opposition to the extreme of God’s sovereignty, “To opt out for Predestination alone is to believe in Fatalism or what is theologically called Hyper-Calvinism.”
So, if one were to assume the bifurcation fallacy, then one of these options would necessarily have to be chosen:
1) Human free will overrides God’s sovereignty, or
2) God’s sovereignty overrides human free will.
If you necessitate an either/or in this situation, then one of the choices becomes slave to the other. However, Scripture is clear that both of these happen at the same time. It is a mystery as to how this happens (emphasis on “how”). As Bill said, we don’t know how the Trinity works, but we know that it does. Likewise, we don’t know how concurrence works, but we can be certain that it in fact does.
You said, “I’m not sure how believing in free will disturbs God’s omniscience.” You are absolutely right! It doesn’t. That is the point of concurrence.
July 20th, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Thanks Danny. Just curious, when Bill says, “People don’t understand how these work together and opt out for one or the other,” is there a group of Christians who opts out for man’s choice only (the extreme of free will as you call it)? I’m just curious.
Could Bill or yourself also briefly explain the origin of the “Doctrine of Concurrence” used in this sense (author, year). Is this a Calvinist doctrine? I had never heard of it.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Willed,
I hope that Bill responds to your latter questions, but here is my take on it:
As far as Christians that explicitly opt for human will and choice to such a degree that they would say God’s sovereignty has no effect, I personally believe that many Arminians and open theists (Arminian extremists) think this way. However, if you asked them directly if God’s sovereignty is subject to man’s will, they would say “no”. I say this almost tongue-in-cheek because 1) I used to be an Arminian, and 2) I have Arminian and open theistic friends, many of whom participate on Theophilux.
As for your question about the origins of the doctrine of concurrence, I will have to defer that completely to Bill. I just did a Google search on the history of the doctrine of concurrence and even looked on Wikipedia, both to no avail.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Thanks Danny for your kind and prompt responses. I will have to disagree with the doctrine of concurrence as it is described here and in this theology book (search for concurrence), and believe that God and humans, created in his image, as well as angels (albeit creatures limited in power) are first movers or first causes, otherwise they cannot be responsible for their actions. God would not be frustrated with persons if they weren’t entirely responsible for what they do (Psalm 14; 14:6). Libertarian free will also does a better job at explaining the problem of evil which you know is a huge hurdle for the unbeliever, which we must help them overcome (James 5:19-20). Also, makes sense out of helping someone see that they must turn to God (Isaiah 45:22).
Being a first mover or being a free agent does nothing to hinder the will of Almighty God. If I do not do as he pleases, he is infinetely resourceful and can do without me to carry out his will. This does not make him subservient to me.
Some of the argumentation provided in this book is poorly thought through.
What argument made you switch to the dark side? :-)
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Willed,
Before I reply, can you clarify your quote, “God and humans… as well as angels… are first movers…”
Which parties are the “first movers”? All three or just some of them?
July 25th, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Persons are first movers. That would include angelic beings, human beings and the triune God.
August 1st, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Bill!
Thanks for this post! I had never really thought or even heard of the concept of concurrence before. You have given me much to think about. Also, your point that we often are in the dark about HOW something happens but still must remain confident THAT it happens is a great insight. The Trinity, the Incarnation, and to some degree the Atonement are in my mind great examples of this.
Do you think it is worthwhile to try to puzzle out the HOW of some of these mysteries? Is it worth discussion and debate? Do you think it is possible to reach satisfying conclusions to the HOW questions?
Thanks again… loved this post.
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:46 AM
I am back from an amazing time of ministry with the College of Prayer in the Ivory Coast, Africa. Thanks be to our God for the awesome things He did in and through His people. And thank you Willed for your comments to my post about the doctrine of Concurrence.
As I read the interaction, it appears to me that there are some questions I can answer, some I can’t, and some comments of my own to offer to the discussion. First of all, the question was raised, “Could Bill or yourself also briefly explain the origin of the ‘Doctrine of Concurrence’ used in this sense (author, year). Is this a Calvinist doctrine? I had never heard of it.” Danny wrote that he did a Google search of the word and couldn’t find anything on it. I am disappointed that Google, the most powerful search engine on the planet, couldn’t access Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof! I personally think it is a great work, among the best. But if you find a copy of his “Fourth Revised and Enlarged” edition, the 13th printing, 1974, (that’s the one I have), you will find an excellent discourse on the doctrine of Concurrence on pages 171-175.
As to the origin of the doctrine, I can’t answer that. However, just as the doctrine of the Trinity is in the Bible (from the very Beginning! – “Let Us make man…) yet the word “Trinity” was not coined until a couple centuries into church history, so also the doctrine of “Concurrence” is in the Bible from the earliest times. One of the verses I referenced and quoted, Genesis 50:20 is a classic text on the doctrine of Concurrence. I think most would agree that it is from an early period of Biblical history since it is the Patriarch Joseph making the statement. But I have no idea when in church history the word “Concurrence” was coined to designate the doctrine. The doctrine is a subsidiary of the overall doctrine of Divine Providence, and the section on “Concurrence” in Berkhof is a subsection of his presentation on the doctrine of Providence.
As to the question of it being Calvinist, my immediate response is: Of course! As to it being exclusively Calvinist (by this I am assuming you are using the word to include more than soteriology, for John MacArthur is a Calvinst in soteriology yet a Dispensationalist in eschatology and he believes in this doctrine), I don’t know.
In response to your statement that you never heard of it, I am interpreting this as a factual as well as humble statement of your lack of knowledge, and not one with the inference that because you never heard of it, it cannot exist. For even Google, with all of its amazing capacities, seems to have never heard of the doctrine, but, as I demonstrated with the reference to Berkhof, it has existed for centuries. And that is a segue way to the next matter.
It seems to me, as I read your comments, that you did not understand what I was trying to communicate, and please forgive me for not doing a better job. What I am seeking to address is the distinction and difference between understanding that something exists and how it exists or works. You make the comment that “we can understand how God relates to his creatures through the Bible and Jesus Christ quite well.” If we take this statement as it is, the word “how” can actually have different meanings, though I assume you only meant one thing. (That, by the way is one of the greatest problems of logic, the fallacy of equivocation – where the same word has different meanings and people use the same word with different meanings.) One is with the meaning of the way God relates to us, for example with justice or grace. We can understand this. Yet it is also true that many who are true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and know Him say they don’t understand how God could love and save them. This is another way, then, of understanding the word “how,” which would be the reason why God would relate to us this way. But what I am talking about is not the way or the reason but the ontological physics of the interaction between the will of God and the will of humans and all other creatures. The Bible teaches that there is a concurrence of God’s will and the human will in actions (again see Genesis 50:20 among other verses), but how this happens in terms of the physics of the interaction of the uncreated, self-exiting, substance of God and the created, totally dependent substance of the creature, no one knows. No one knows how the eternal substance of God the Son was joined with the created substance of humanity to become one Person in Jesus Christ. But in Him, orthodox Christian theology asserts, there were two wills operating in perfect union in One Person. That is concurrence. So, once again, how the physics of the interaction of the uncreated, self-exiting, substance of God and the created, totally dependent substance of the creature takes place, no one knows.
This brings me to the assertion that “God and humans, created in his image, as well as angels (albeit creatures limited in power) are first movers or first causes.” As I read this, I must confess that I need further clarification of what is meant by “first.” That is for two reasons: (1) I am glad that you are one who observes, as you stated, that certain arguments are “poorly thought through,” for it seems to me that this is poorly thought through because the statement is a logical contradiction. This is because there can only be one first. That is a self-evident statement. (And please, I hope no one says that there can be two firsts in the Olympics because while there may be two or three gold medals given out, there is only one fist place time.) The statement, however, asserts that God and every other creature with choice is first. That is a logical contradiction because there can only be one first. (2) But the greatest problem I have with the statement is theological. That is because only God can be first. Only God is eternally self-existing. Everything, and I mean everything else, is secondary – being created by Him and being sustained by Him. As the statement stands, it seems to be an outright denial of Scripture. For example, Colossians 1:16-17 says all things were created by Christ and are sustained by Him. (See also John 1:3; Heb. 1:2-3). So I must confess that I don’t know what you are trying to communicate when you say a creature is a first mover and even, more significantly, a first cause! Only God is the First Cause. That is because He alone is self-existing being the “I AM.” He is the cause of the existence of all things (John 1:3). To say that created things are first causes is to attribute to them the divine attribute. It is because God is the First Cause and First Mover that there is the doctrine of Concurrence. Everything comes into existence and is sustained by the will and power of God (again Col.1:16-17), so everything must interact with the working of the eternally self-existing creator and sustainer God.
Finally, this brings me to the claim that “Libertarian free will also does a better job at explaining the problem of evil which you know is a huge hurdle for the unbeliever, which we must help them overcome (James 5:19-20).” First of all, the reference to James is not about enabling unbelievers understand the problem of evil. It is about restoring sinners to relationship with God. Second, it is somewhat astonishing to me that the claim is even made of explaining the problem of evil, especially to an unbeliever. As far as I know (and as I said above, that doesn’t mean it is true, it is simply stating my own experience), the problem of evil is the greatest theological/philosophical problem there is. The reason I am astonished is that a whole book, the book of Job is devoted to it. It ends with the LORD asking Job dozens of questions (significantly enough most about how the physical universe works) and the conclusion of it is that Job is speechless. The point that the LORD is making is that not even Job, the one whom God said was the greatest man on earth, could understand the problem of evil and God’s ways of sovereignly working with evil and ruling over it. So to say that the “Libertarian free will” view explains it even to an unbeliever seems to me to be a statement that has not taken into account what the Bible reveals and teaches about the problem of evil. We can and should use apologetics as best we can, but in the end it is as the book of Hosea ends (14:9), unbelievers “stumble” in God’s ways. So may I kindly say, it is my opinion that whatever the Libertarian free will view is, it must not be Biblical, but rather humanistic, if the unbeliever understands and agrees with it. (By the way, I have never heard of the “Libertarian free will” view and it seems to me to be a redundant term doesn’t it?). So in conclusion, I hope this answers some questions, adds to the discussion, and to equivocate myself, that you might come to concur with it.
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:24 AM
This will come as no surprise to anyone… but I, for one, concur.
August 7th, 2009 at 3:59 AM
Tamra, the short answer is yes, your prayers do impact the life of the unbeliever (Romans 10:1-4; 1 Timothy 2:1). Because God wants all men to be saved (Ezekiel 18:32; 1 Timothy 2:4) you should act with the fervor of Barnabas and Paul (Acts 14:15) and share “the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation” (Ephesians 1:13) with all unbelievers (Isaiah 45:22; 1 Timothy 2:3). The Bible is a salvation story with Christ at the beginning, center and end. It is those who answer God’s call through the Gospel who will be saved (2 Thessalonians 2:14). It is “those who love him” who are “predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son” (Romans 8:28). You turned (Isaiah 45:22), trusted and believed (Romans 9:33) and became “obedient from the heart” (Acts 28:27; Romans 6:17; Romans 10:10) and so can they (Luke 11:13; John 1:7; John 1:12; John 14:15; John 3:15; Acts 2:21; Romans 10:12-13). And yes, we can freely choose to believe or not to believe.
Now, for the long answer.
Being all knowing is one of God’s most reassurring attributes for us Christians, and God’s knowledge is more remarkable than simply knowing future events. God also knows all contingent future acts of his free creatures. This means that He is not surprised by any of his free creatures’ choices, including your choosing to pray for someone. This foreknowledge includes whether or not humans will be responsive to the Gospel. Beware of explanations that negate, diminish or obscure human freedom. Human freedom is a sovereignly given gift and is the most adequate explanation to reality and the problem of evil in the world. God explains the problem of evil quite simply and forcefully in Genesis 2:17. We know about it personally since Genesis 3:6, and are suffering as a consequence of knowing evil since Genesis 3:16-19.
When sin entered the world it was “by one man” (Romans 5:12), not by man and God in concurrence. Adam rebelled against God’s authority and that is why we are all in the mess we are in today. Because we are all under this curse, the gospel is offered to the many (Romans 5: 15) not to a pre-selected few (Matthew 20:14-16). In his omniscience, God has knowledge of all who would respond to the gospel so in that sense he foreknows their names.
The fact is, creatures are free agents (Genesis 2:16) and are able to respond to the claims of the gospel quite well, otherwise we wouldn’t repeateadly be asked to turn (Isaiah 45:22; Acts 14:15; Acts 20:21; Acts 26:18; 2 Timothy 2:19), repent (Isaiah 59:20; Jeremiah 5:3; Ezekiel 14:6; Ezekiel 18:32; Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 21:32; Mark 1:15; Acts 26:20; Mark 6:12; Luke 13:3-5; Luke 15:10; Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19; Acts 17:30; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Revelation 2:21), believe (Genesis 15:6; Mark 5:36; Mark 16:16; John 3:16-18; John 3:36; John 6:29; John 6:47; John 7:38; John 8:24; John 11:26; Acts 16:31) and obey (Genesis 22:18; Exodus 12:24; Leviticus 18:4; Deuteronomy 6:24; Joshua 1:7; Joshua 1:18; Joshua 24:24; Jeremiah 7:23; Daniel 9:11; Hosea 9:17; Matthew 19:17; Matthew 28:20; Luke 11:28; John 14:21-24; Acts 5:32; Romans 16:26; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Hebrews 5:9; 1 Peter 4:17; 1 John 2:4-6; 1 John 3:24; Revelation 3:3; Revelation 14:12). We do not diminish Jesus’, the Holy Spirit’s or God’s role in salvation by saying that we are responsible for our response. God is pleading for all people to turn to him: “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” (Romans 10:21; Psalm 78:22). If we are frustrating God by being disobedient and contrary, we must be able to do the opposite, that is to freely turn to him in obedience and agreement. If creatures weren’t free agents, how could we freely love the Lord our God and our neighbor? We desire to pray for them so that they can share in what we have heard and tasted (1 Peter 1:8), that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If God is the one doing the causing for his creatures, then verses that show the creatures’ unwillingness and rebellion make absolutely no sense (Deuteronomy 1:26; Isaiah 30:9; Romans 13:2; Hebrews 3: 18-19; Revelation 2:21).
Being a first mover or first cause simply means that no one is causing me (Lucifer, Eve or Adam) to move. It does not mean that I am a Necessary Being (God is the only uncaused Necessary being. Only He sustains the universe). If I want to lift my arm up (or eat a forbidden piece of fruit or desire to be like God), no one else is doing the moving (or the eating or the desiring) but me. Not a prior cause, not God. In that sense people are first causes or first movers. Bill misunderstands first cause as me causing myself to exist instead of me causing something else to happen and so he starts attacking a strawman. I, my self, determine the act (turning, repenting, believing, obeying), not another person.
People are created by God with the free will to act or refrain from acting, to respond to the Gospel or not. This is a very powerful human attribute. Otherwise, people could not freely obey or for that matter truly love. My point is simply that without the free will to act or refrain from acting people cannot be held responsible for their actions. People could not be held responsible for not aknowledging the LORD (Jeremiah 9:2-4).
God saying “turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:22), shows that we have the freedom of moral and rational responsibility even if our proclivity is towards vomit. Jesus says “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (John 3:18; Mark 16:16) and Jesus sacrifices himself because he “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-5). His whole ministry to the point of dying on the cross is about persuading human beings that HE is the right choice.
It is clear that the Gospel is offered to everyone without favoritism (Joel 2:32; Acts 10:28, Acts 10:34-36, Acts 10:44-45) and that human beings are able to freely believe in Jesus Christ (Mark 1:15; Mark 5:36; John 4:40-42; John 10:42; John 16:31; Acts 4:4; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:13; Acts 10:42-44; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Romans 1:16; Romans 3:22; Galatians 3:7; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Timothy 4:10; Hebrews 4:3; Hebrews 10:39; Hebrews 11:6; James 2:23; 1 Peter 1:21; 1 John 3:23; 1 John 5:1; 1 John 5:10) and can be saved based on a presentation of the Gospel (Mark 1:15; Mark 5:36; Acts 14:1).
Bill seems to imply that unbelievers are unable to comprehend truth when he remarks that an explanation of the problem of evil cannot be true if unbelievers believe it. If we follow that curious logic, one would wonder if the Gospel is true if unbelievers start believing it. Even more curious is the insinuation that unbelievers do not have the ability to respond to God’s grace. These verses clearly show the contrary (Matthew 23:37; John 7:17; Romans 7:18; 1 Corinthians 9:17; Philemon 14; 1 Peter 5:2). The heart of the issue is this idea that by receiving God’s gracious gift, the person is working for it and therefore is denying Ephesians 2:8-9. This is a clear misunderstanding of the nature of faith. The recipient in no way takes credit for the donor’s gracious gift.
In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin even observes that,
“There is no nation so barbarous, no race so brutish, as not to be imbued with the conviction that there is a God” (p.80)
“On each of his works his glory is engraven in characters so bright, so distinct, and so illustrious, that none, however dull and illiterate, can plead ignorance as their excuse” (p.92)
“If they are not possessed of shameless effrontery, they |unbelievers| will be compelled to confess that the Scripture exhibits clear evidence of its being spoken by God, and, consequently, of its containing his heavenly doctrine.” (p.121)
“If the Gentiles have the righteousness of the law naturally engraven on their minds, we certainly cannot say that they are altogether blind as to the rule of life” (p.359)
(http://books.google.com/books?id=g6ksp6qmGEQC)
Calvin also comments about Romans 1:20-21 that,
“God has presented to the minds of all the means of knowing him, having so manifested himself by his works, that they must necessarily see what of themselves they seek not to know — that there is some God”
(http://books.google.com/books?id=e9Vj-4h6MMUC)
Having the ability to believe implies the ability to do the opposite which is to refuse to believe (Mark 16:16; Acts 14:2; Acts 19:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:12; Titus 1:15; 1 Peter 2:7; 1 Peter 3:1; Jude 1:5) and suffer the consequences. The contrast between believing and not believing clearly shows human free will in action.
The unsound doctrine of concurrence brought up by Bill is defined by Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology as “the cooperation of the divine power with all subordinate powers |humans and angels|, according to the pre-established laws of their operation, causing them to act precisely as they do” (p. 172). According to concurrence, God realizes his will through the self-activity of the creature, whether the activity is good or evil. If we follow this inadequate explanation, God would “enable and prompt His rational creatures” to rape six year olds or to {fill in whatever human action}. Not only that, but “after the activity of the creature has begun, the efficacious will of God must accompany it at every moment, if it is to continue. There is not a single moment that the creature works independently of the will and the power of God” (p.173). Since they can’t have it both ways – the creature is either the cause of the action or it is not – Berkhof ends by saying that the logical conclusion is so problematic for theologians like him that “the problem of God’s relation to sin remains a mystery.”
I would submit that what Paul teaches is that Christians are predestined to become like Christ, but people are not coerced forcefully to become Christians. This separates Christianity from other religions. God having foreknowledge of all future truths (i.e., what events or future actions his free creatures will choose), does not mean that creatures are not free to choose one way or another. Denying that some actions can be free is self-defeating. To see this you just need to look at Bill Hyer’s last words. He wants me to come and concur with his opinion. But how can I if I am determined to believe this way? The fact that I “ought to change” my view would imply that I have freedom to change.
“…And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:14)
“The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And he who is wise wins souls.” (Proverbs 11:30)
August 9th, 2009 at 9:38 PM
As this discussion has developed, it is evident that we have wandered from the question of Concurrence to the issue of the freedom of the will. The freedom of the will is a related subject, but not exactly the same thing. Having said this, I would kindly ask that Willed seek to understand the argument that I have presented, for, as I read the post, I don’t believe he actually does. It is like a husband and wife disagreeing – before you continue to disagree, try to understand what the other person is actually saying, not what you think they are saying. While I would like him, as I said in my last post, to concur with what I have said, just as he would hope that I concur with him, I know he is free to choose to believe what he wants. I wonder if this may be a surprising statement to him.
As I read the response, it seems evident that Willed doesn’t actually understand the argument that is being presented. I am not asking that he agrees with it, but I would kindly request that he understand it before he continues to make criticisms. One example of this is that the doctrine of Concurrence asserts that creatures are free and have free choice relative to their nature. This means that creatures are not compelled or forced to make a choice, and are in this regard free. If he had understood this, I believe he would not have felt it necessary to marshal all the verses about choice with which he is trying to prove a point. The free choice of the creature is not denied in the doctrine of Concurrence.
What also appears to be lacking in the understanding about the doctrine is the working of the divine will with the choices of the creatures. For Willed it is either/or. It seems he can’t get beyond this paradigm. That is fine, if that is what he chooses to believe. But please try to understand what the doctrine of Concurrence asserts, that it is both the free choice of the creature and the divine will working at the same time. This is clearly stated in the Scriptures in Philippians 2:13, “For it is God who works in you both to will and to work of His good pleasure.” It is not either/or, it is both. We might also look at Ephesians 1:11 which says that God “works all things according to the counsel of His will.” The Greek words translated “all things” literally mean “all things”. His divine will is working in all things – which includes the choices of creatures.
Now as I said above, it is evident that the discussion has drifted into the issue of the freedom of the will. Because of this, we have come to the same debate that has taken place for centuries – from the time that Pelagius criticized Augustine’s prayer in the 4th Century. With that criticism, the Church was plunged into the question of the relationship of God’s will to the human will and the nature of the freedom of the will. As I read the presentation of Willed, it appears that his argument is not simply Semi-Pelagian but outright Pelagian. The same rationale that Pelagius used is presented by him – that God cannot hold people responsible if they do not have the freedom and power to choose. Many people wish that reasoning was true in regard to their loans to the bank, that, because they don’t have the ability to pay, they cannot be held responsible to pay them! While Willed is very zealous in presenting his view as being the proper interpretation of Scripture, the testimony of history shows us that he is in stark disagreement with the greatest theologians in history of the church: Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards, to name a few.
Luther wrote about the subject of the freedom of the will in his book The Bondage of the Will. The book was a treatise against the humanist view of the freedom of the will. Luther said, of all his works, this was the greatest and most important. The reason was because he said that the very nature of the Gospel was at stake. I am certain that Willed believes he is championing the gospel, and I do not in any way question his motives or love for our God. But if someone of the caliber of Luther says my view threatens the very nature of the Gospel, it would be sobering to me and a reason for me to pause and give further thought to the issues. And keep in mind, it was not me who said this, it was Luther.
And then there is Jonathan Edwards, who many believe was the greatest theologian in history (among them Martin Lloyd-Jones). Edwards wrote about this subject in his book Freedom of the Will. Significantly enough, Edwards believed this was his most important work. The arguments Willed marshals are dealt with at length by Edwards, and Edwards would not agree with Willed, and, as it appears, I do not think Willed would agree with Edwards.
Since the greatest theologians in history have dealt with this at length, I do not believe in the few short words of this post, that I could add anything new. However, I would make one observation and question about Willed’s remarks. With all the assertions about the freedom of the will, where do you in your theology seriously take into account the teaching of Scripture that human beings are slaves of sin? To be slave means one is not free. This is what the Scriptures teach – not by inference but by outright propositional statements. Romans 6 says people are slaves of sin. The greatest exposition of the bondage of the will is Romans 7. Paul begins a biographical account with the words that he is “sold into bondage to sin” (Romans 7:14) and goes on to speak, not about the freedom of the will that Willed asserts that everyone has, but the bondage of the will. Paul ends the biographical analysis of his inability and lack of freedom to choose to do God’s will with the anguished cry of “O wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death?” If one were free as Willed asserts, one would not need to be delivered, or to use another term, to be saved! And then there is our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, “He who sins is a slave of sin” (John 8:34). How does the theology of Willed, with all the assertion about the freedom of the will, take these assertions of Scripture into account? If man’s will is absolutely free, even “sovereign” as Willed asserts, how then can Scripture teach that it is not free, that it is, in fact, enslaved to sin? How can the Scripture teach that people have true actual moral choice and yet are slaves of sin?
It appears to me that one of the problems in the discussion is the definition of freedom and the assumptions about it. Edwards made the distinction between natural freedom and moral freedom. Natural freedom is the freedom of the creature to choose and not be compelled or forced. Every Calvinist believes this (which includes all the theologians named above). The creature chooses according to its nature. Moral freedom is the ability to choose not to sin. The word of God teaches that human beings in the flesh do not have this freedom, that they are slaves of sin. It appears for Willed that there is no distinction. He believes that because humans have natural freedom and ability they must (and I say “must,” because his argument says this is a necessity) also have the moral ability to choose not to sin. This means that humans are not actually slaves of sin as Scripture teaches. It means that humans have the moral ability, and in that sense the freedom to choose not to sin, and most importantly the ability to choose to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the historic Pelagian view. Willed writes, “The fact is, creatures are free agents (Genesis 2:16) and are able to respond to the claims of the gospel quite well, otherwise we wouldn’t repeateadly be asked to turn.” That is a Pelagian argument. To the contrary, the fact is that the Lord Jesus Christ said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44) and “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him by the Father” (John 6:65). In both of these statements Jesus says no one is able to respond, and that means they do not have the moral ability and freedom to believe in Jesus. They are slaves of sin. The Greek word translated “able” is “dunatai”, which means power or ability. Jesus said no one – the Greek literally means “no one” – is able to respond left to themselves. It seems to me that Willed, who disagreed with the doctrine of Concurrence also disagrees with Jesus. And it also seems to me that, contrary to what Willed asserts about the doctrine of Concurrence, that Jesus teaches it here: God the Father grants and draws and the human chooses to come to Christ – both are happening in the same act.
August 16th, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Like Jonathan Edwards in your appeal to authority, you argue that all actions are caused by God. Jonathan Edwards rightly argued many things, including the fact that all actions are caused, but he like Berkhof (and other strong Calvinists) jumps to the wrong conclusion by saying that God is the cause of all actions. (The works of Jonathan Edwards, p.425) It’s quite obvious from scripture and really by simple self-introspection that the self causes things to happen. If God gave us free moral agency then we can cause some actions. Since it’s not simply a possibility but is taught by scriptures, not all actions need to be attributed to God. God is the First Cause of his own actions. Having free choice, contrary to what Edwards advances, is not doing what we desire, with God giving the desire. We do what we decide. I may not desire to serve in Afghanistan but I do it out of a sense of duty, not desire. Therefore, not all actions are determined by God.
I’m not sure why you say “it is evident that we have wandered from the question of Concurrence to the issue of the freedom of the will” when the first two sentences from your original response say you will clear the confusion about “how the will of God and the will (wills) of the creature interact or work together.” It’s impossible to talk about one without the other.
The Doctrine of Concurrence is flawed because like determinism it contends that no person is moved to act unless God acts upon him. You use the words free choice as doing what persons desire according to their nature, but like Edwards, with God alone giving the desire (motives, temptations, …). That’s an erroneous version of free choice and confusing to your readers when you use these words in a non-libertarian sense.
Your red-herring about Pelagius is odd as I do not claim that human effort or merit can bring about salvation without divine grace. The free agent the Bible speaks about in no way takes credit for the donor’s gracious gift. God does the inviting (Matthew 22:3) and the rejecting of those who rebel and do not respond to the invitation (Matthew 13:41; Isaiah 63:10), as well as the clothing (Isaiah 61:10) of those who respond by faith.
Again, if God cannot sin (Habakkuk 1:13), it’s unintelligible to see how Lucifer chooses to rebel against God. This would mean that God gave Lucifer the desire to sin. It’s unreasonable to believe that Lucifer had such an angelic nature that he made a free choice of rebellion in concurrence with God’s will (God doing the desiring for him). But the desire to sin, James tells his brothers, comes from within the free agent alone (James 1:13–14). If Adam and Lucifer have free choice without any outsider influence (Romans 5:12), then Edwards’, Berkhof ‘s and Hyer’s concept of free choice is incoherent.
With respect to sin, if I follow your strong determinism argument, fallen human beings are in bondage to sin and unable to respond to God. But, as I showed previously, even though human beings are sinners, God consistently calls on people to turn (Ezekiel 18:23), repent (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38) and believe (e.g., John 3:16; 3:36; Acts 16:31). The Bible also teaches that unbelievers have the ability to respond to God’s grace (Joshua 24:23; Matt. 23:37; John 7:17; Mark 6:6; Acts 2:40; Rom. 7:18; 1 Cor. 9:17; Philem. 14; 1 Peter 5:2).
The banking example you provided actually works against concurrence and makes the point that humans are free moral agents acting as first causes. In this situation, people (non-Christians as well as Christians) are responsible to repay the bank because the decision to borrow was solely caused by them and it is morally righteous to repay debt. Since all human beings have the moral law written on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:33-34; Romans 2:15), the decision to repay debt is about making a moral choice to repay because it is the right thing to do. So we all indeed have the ability to make moral choices. Non-believers have this sense of right too and a lot of them repay their debts. Since borrowers (of either nature) freely decided to borrow and no one coerced them, i.e., no one else was involved in the act of borrowing, ultimately they are responsible and cannot simply not repay (even under circumstances beyond their control e.g., loosing their job) without having to suffer consequences (liens on their assets, negative marks on their credit). So, you are correct to imply that their inability to repay is irrelevant to the bank. The bank cares little about their customers’ natures vis-à-vis God. After all, they were aware in advance of the responsibility that comes from borrowing and of the consequences if they do not repay. What is relevant is that they entered the borrowing agreement fully free and willing, and therefore are solely responsible to repay. It would only become a problem for the bank if it suddenly discovered that the loan was taken in concurrence with or by another free agent altogether. In fact, if the bank found that the loan was taken with a co-borrower they would hold that person responsible as well, including God (it might prove difficult to collect in that instance). In conclusion, God cannot be held responsible for the sinfulness of his creatures and much like the banker, He holds people responsible and judges them for their actions precisely because he has endowed them with free moral agency.
As a side note: I grew up in France until the age of 17 and I accepted to follow Christ at 25 while in the United States where I now reside. I am married (with a willing bride I might add, as the church is to Jesus Christ) and have two children. The problem I saw in America as an unbeliever (proliferation of church denominations) and now more clearly as a believer, with the help of God’s spirit, is a sad state of division among Christians which we are advised against (1 Corinthians 3:2-4). It is no wonder this great Christian nation cannot stop abortion. Christians are so busy arguing amongst themselves, creating division and grooming theological elitists that the real work is being pushed aside. While we should pursue truth, let’s abandon worthless doctrines and fruitless theology and let the Bible speak for itself wherever that may lead.
I agree with some of the things Calvin, Augustine and Aquinas said but not with everything they said:
“On each of his works his glory is engraven in characters so bright, so distinct, and so illustrious, that none, however dull and illiterate, can plead ignorance as their excuse.” (John Calvin)
“In fact, sin is so much a voluntary evil that it is not sin at all unless it is voluntary…” (Augustine, Of True Religion, 14)
“I answer that, Man has free will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica)
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” (Jesus, Matthew 23:37. See also Matthew 23:12; Matthew 23:26; Proverbs 1:24; Isaiah 65:12; Isaiah 66:4; Jeremiah 7:13; John 5:40).
August 31st, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Willed, thanks for this well-thought-out response. I too am baffled by the idea that God could will me to do evil and then hold me responsible for doing it.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Willed,
Once again, thank you for your reply – and once again may I kindly and gently, yet directly and forthrightly, state what I wrote before: you do not understand the argument being presented by the doctrine of concurrence. There are a number of reasons why I say this.
The first is that, as I read your statements, you believe the doctrine is the same as Determinism. In representing what the doctrine asserts, you say:
“All actions are caused by God”
“not all actions are determined by God”
“The Doctrine of Concurrence is flawed because like determinism it contends that no person is moved to act unless God acts upon him”
“With respect to sin, if I follow your strong determinism argument…”
The last quote explicitly demonstrates that your interpretation of Concurrence is that it is simply determinism. I can only say in response to this, you don’t understand the doctrine. You seem not to be able to hear and understand that the doctrine of Concurrence asserts BOTH God’s sovereignty and man’s free choice. I am not asking you to agree with the doctrine, I am asking you to understand it.
It seems that everything you read is interpreted through your paradigm of either/or – Determinism or Libertarian Free Will. You seem to me to be like a physicist that rejects the Theory of Relativity because you know that Quantum mechanics is true and can’t understand that both working together is the whole picture of the physical universe. You also seem to be like the person who rejects the doctrine of the Incarnation and specifically that Jesus is God because he believes that Jesus was an actual human being and he cannot understand how in Jesus can at the same time be one Person having two complete, whole and distinct natures that work together in perfect unison. For you it is either/or, and because of your commitment to your view of Libertarian free will, you can’t get beyond that to understand concurrence.
Another evidence of your not understanding the argument and interpreting through your own paradigm is your response about the banking example. The point of the example is about people being held responsible for something they do not have the power to do. The critical point in the illustration is that they do not have the power to pay what they owe. You do not hear or understand this because your paradigm is that all creatures have the power. You write, “The banking example you provided actually works against concurrence and makes the point that humans are free moral agents acting as first causes.” The fact that you say this “actually works against concurrence and makes the point that humans are free moral agents” shows that you do not understand the doctrine of concurrence and see it only as determinism. Let me say it again, Concurrence asserts that humans are free moral agents and are morally responsible. All of the talk about a person becoming morally responsibility by entering into the loan is: 1) a given – that is why they are morally responsible, and 2) irrelevant to the point of the illustration. All of the other talk is irrelevant talk about free will. The point is not about free will to enter the loan or being morally responsible to pay the loan. The point is about the power to pay to loan. They don’t have the power or ability to pay it. Thus, their only choice, the only possible choice, is to not pay. That is their free choice and their only choice because they don’t have the power to make the other choice.
And that is the whole issue: your view of free will is a Pelagian view – that humans have the power to choose to do God’s will, whether to do good or to believe on Christ. (Merit is secondary to the core issue, which is ability.) You build the whole argument on the assumption that because God commands people to do His will, they, by moral necessity, must have the power to do it. That is a Pelagian argument. The Reformed view is that God commands all people to do His will – what is His other option? Is He going to command them to sin? But people do not have the power or ability to do His will. That is the whole issue – the power and ability, thus the actual possibility to pay, not conceptual possibility to pay. You miss the point of the illustration because you are so focused and committed to your belief that they have the power, that they must have the power, because that is your belief and definition of free will. Like a car out of alignment, you pull the illustration that direction and drive it into the ditch saying it proves your point rather that going down the middle of the road avoiding the ditch of either side.
Contrary to the Pelagian view, the Reformed view is that human beings left to themselves in the fallen state of sin do not have the power to do God’s will. They have the power of choice – that is why the Bible says we all choose to sin (Romans 3:23). But, left to ourselves, we don’t have the power to do God’s will – that is why it says “No one does good, not even one” (Romans 3:12). And that is why Paul said, “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out” (Romans 7:18). You don’t really believe this. To my utter astonishment you quote this verse to support your assertion that “unbelievers have the ability to respond to God’s grace.” Paul says he doesn’t have the ability. He has “desire” but not power.
It is for this reason, because we do not have the power and ability to choose to do the good, that we must be saved and that by grace. But for you, grace turns out to be nothing more than an invitation. For you, the power for salvation on God’s part is only in what God has already done and then in Him giving an invitation to human beings who are completely left to themselves to make a choice. The ultimate determining power is in man and his ability to choose. Because of this, your doctrine teaches that that which ultimately saves is man’s choice and his power to choose. For you, God has done everything He can, but after that it all depends on man’s choice.
Contrary to this, the Bible teaches that, left to themselves, no one will choose the good. Therefore, salvation is actually salvation – we are saved! We are saved by grace. It ultimately depends on the power of God’s grace to regenerate the human will and thereby give people power to believe and repent. We both believe that God gives power to be saved. You believe that that power is present in all human beings and that the fall did not affect the power of humans to choose to do good. That is a Pelagian view. The Bible teaches the fall made all people totally incapable, unable, without any power to choose to do good, and most of all to believe on Christ and repent. But the Bible teaches that God by His grace gives them grace and power to believe through regeneration. When people are regenerated by the power of the Spirit, they will then choose to believe. But before this no one will believe by their own free choice. Jesus said one must be born of the Spirit before he can see the kingdom. A person must be regenerated to see and believe, and then a he will choose to believe in Christ. The Westminster Confession in speaking about this work of God’s grace in regeneration says, “He renews their wills and by His almighty power leads them to what is good. And so he effectually draws them to Jesus Christ. But they come to Jesus voluntarily, having been made willing by God’s grace” (10:1). If you can’t hear the Westminster Confession asserting free choice in the word “willing” then it is because you can’t get it beyond your paradigm.
And then, the concluding reason that I say you do not understand the argument and interpret everything through your paradigm is by you not even addressing the questions I asked in the last response. You have said nothing about the Bible teaching that humans are slaves of sin. You did not because you simply do not believe it. For you to say, as Jesus and Paul do, that people are slaves of sin is totally contrary to your paradigm. You don’t address this because you can’t. You just go on repeating your statements about free will based on you Libertarian view of free will.
Since you will not address the issues of the Scripture teaching the bondage of the will, let me approach the issue in another direction. Does God have Libertarian free will? You say God commands people to do His will, as is obvious from Scripture. The Reformed view is that God commands all people to do His will and not to sin. Did you ever think about that in terms of your view of free will? What other choice does God have but to command people not to sin? Does He have the free choice to command people not to do His will? Does He have the free choice to command people to sin? The Reformed view is that God is free, that He is the most free being in the universe, but He does not have the power, ability, or the possibility to sin. That means He does not have the freedom to choose to sin. God does not have a free will to sin. Or do you believe He does have the power to sin? Do you believe that, because of your view of free will, God must have the power to sin but only chooses not to do so? Do you believe, contrary to Scripture, that it is possible for God to lie and, therefore, He does not lie only because He “freely” chooses not to do so? The Reformed view is that (a) God is free, (b) God makes the free choice not to sin, and (c) that God’s choice not to sin, in actual possibility, is the only choice that God has because of His divine, righteous and holy nature – He cannot sin. On the same principle of reasoning and logic (a) fallen human beings are free, (b) fallen human beings make the free choice to sin, and (c) that free choice to sin and not do God’s will (I am speaking in terms of absolutes as Romans 3:10-12 does, not in terms of “civil righteousness”) is, in actual possibility, the only choice that they can make because of their fallen sinful nature. This is what the Scripture teaches: that fallen people are in bondage to sin, slaves to sin, and do not have a Libertarian free will.
In conclusion, I totally agree that the church is divided, and that we can waste our time on issues that will not be resolved because of the commitments of people to their views. So, and I say this with the utmost kindness and gentleness, until you actually understand what is written about the argument of concurrence, and more importantly, seriously address the issue of what the Scriptures say about the bondage of the will and humans being slaves of sin – instead of simply asserting that Edwards and all the others are wrong – I agree with you, it is a waste of time. In this you are completely right. May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
August 31st, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Mike,
You are baffled by the idea – read Romans 9:19.