Acknowledgements

I am in great debt to the teachings of Dr. R.J. Gore as well as his notes and powerpoints on the Doctrine of God, which have influenced and shaped my ideas about the doctrine of God.  His notes were particularly important in helping me outline and construct the following paper.

We believe first that God exists (Heb. 11:6) and that He causes all other things to exist (Heb. 1:2-3).  We also believe there are no other gods save the God of the Bible (Isa. 45:5, 45:21).  We believe that God is one (Deut. 6:4), but we also believe that the Scriptures teach us that within the oneness of God there are “three persons, really, truly, and eternally distinct according to their incommunicable properties– namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”  The Scriptures and the Nicene Creed affirm that these three persons within the Holy Trinity are all equally God.  The Father is God (Mal. 2:10; Rom. 1:7).  The Son is God (John 1:1, 18; Rom. 9:5).  The Holy Spirit is God (Gen. 1:2; Eph. 4:30).  However, the three persons within the Trinity do not “divide God into three.”  Nor are the three persons individual affections or properties of God the Father; the three persons are each God (Matt. 3:17, 28:19; John 1:32, 15:26).  

As Calvin writes, “Father and Son and Spirit are one God, yet the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that they are differentiated by a peculiar quality.”  The peculiar qualities or distinctions of the individual members of the Trinity are two-fold.  There are eternal distinctions within the persons of the Godhead, “the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.”  It is important to note that the distinctions are in regards to the persons of the Trinity and not in regards to their divine essence.  The Son’s divinity is not eternally begotten from the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit’s divinity derived from the Father and/or Son.  If this were the case, then the Son and the Holy Spirit would be considered God in name only and not in actuality.  Hence the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit are derived from their own divine nature. 

We also believe that there are distinctions in the Trinity in regards to how each person within the Trinity is involved towards creation, especially in redemptive history.  For instance, the Father calls individuals into adoption through Christ’s redeeming sacrifice on the cross (John 6:39, 44, 10:29, 17:9; Eph. 1:3-13).  The Son is distinct from the Father and the Spirit in that the Son is the only one to have taken on human nature.  It is through the Son’s suffering, death and resurrection that we have received redemption and forgiveness for our sins (Eph. 1:7).  The Son and the Spirit intercede on behalf of the saints to the Father (Rom. 8:26-27, 34).  The Spirit dwells within the believer in order to act as a seal of adoption (Rom. 8:15-16 and Eph. 1:13, 4:30), regenerate and sanctify the believer (1 Pet. 1:2 and Titus 3:5), and empower the church with gifts of power (1 Cor. 12:3-11).

Although there are distinctions within the Trinity, we must be careful not to emphasize the distinction over against the unity, or else we will end up with three gods, which is a contradiction of Deuteronomy 6:4 and the creeds and confessions of the church.  Instead, we also need to emphasize the unity of the Trinity.  This can be done by ascribing to the Trinity those attributes which are coextensive with the nature of God and which are shared in common by all three persons of the Trinity.  We believe that “there is but one God, who is one sole and simple essence, spiritual, eternal, invisible, immutable, infinite, incomprehensible, ineffable, omnipotent; who is all-wise all-good, all-just, and all-merciful.”  We believe that God is one sole and simple essence because it keeps us from viewing God as a collection of attributes.  It also allows us to acknowledge that God’s attributes are not “only characteristics of some part of God, but rather that they are characteristics of God himself and therefore characteristic of all of God.”  Furthermore, we “should not think of the attributes of God as something external from God’s real being or real self, something added on to who God really is.”

In regards to His eternal and immutable nature, we confess that this is true in regards to his character, but we should not push this to the point that God does not experience change, emotion or that He is impassable.  There are several biblical passages that indicate that God experiences emotions and that He wants us to be aware of and experience His emotion (e.g., Ex. 32:10, 34:6; Neh. 8:10; Hos. 11:7-8).  It is not fitting of Scripture to circumscribe those incidents of God’s emotions as simple anthropomorphisms for the purpose of removing the difficult theological implications of such a concept.  We must be consistent with the testimony of Scripture and confess that Scripture is clear of God’s immutable nature (1 Sam. 15:29; Mal. 3:6) and his experience of emotion (Mic. 7:18; Zeph. 3:17; John 3:16; Rom. 5:8).  In order to reconcile these two, we must confess that God is not overwhelmed by His emotions but is guided by his decretive will.  This does not resolve the issue but it may be we have reached the limits of our understanding.  Hence, we should remember that He is also eternal, incomprehensible and ineffable and we are finite and limited.

            In regards to his decretive will, we confess that “God from all eternity did by his unchangeable counsel ordain whatsoever in time should come to pass.”  This includes the smallest of details such as the flight of birds (Isa. 46:10; Matt. 10:29), but also includes the actions of wicked men (Acts 2:23, 4:27-28), the salvation of the elect (Eph. 1:11; 2 Tim. 1:19).  Furthermore, we confess that God’s decrees were not founded upon or conditional upon the foreknowledge of human action, but that His decrees were contingent upon the “manifestation of His glory.”  In other words, all things worked together towards this teleological end where God’s glory will be manifested throughout all of creation. 

Since God unconditionally ordains the actions of humans and angels, it is easy to infer that God is the author of sin, permits sin instead of ordains it, and/or that human choice is render null and void.  In order to avoid such errors, we must confess with Scripture that God is not the author of sin (Psalm 5:4; Jas.1:13; 1 John 1:5).  We should also avoid speaking of God as permitting evil instead of ordaining it, as Calvin writes, “But why shall we say permission unless it is so because God wills?”  Instead, we must rest in the mystery that God with his infinite wisdom, power and goodness is able to use evil creatures and their actions for good, without being culpable, and yet still hold them accountable for their evil (Gen. 50:20; Rom. 9:19-23).  In regards to human choice, we must recognize that Scripture does not annul human choice or human responsibility, but that God’s sovereignty and human free will act simultaneously in a mysterious relationship (e.g., Gen 50:20; Acts 27:21-31).

Furthermore, we confess that the decrees of God are eternal and unchangeable (Psalm 33:11; Heb. 6:17).  In other words, God’s will cannot and will not be thwarted.  He has established His plan and He will execute His plan.  In regards to those passages that indicate that God desires something beyond what He has decreed (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:4-5), we must understand this as His preceptive will.  His preceptive will being understood as those things which God desires for humanity to do.  For instance, Pharaoh was commanded to release Israel from his bondage (Ex. 7:2); this would be an example of God’s preceptive will.  But God hardened his heart for He decreed to Moses that He would do this in order to manifest his glory to all the earth (Ex. 7:3-5, 9:16). This would be an example of God’s decretive will.  Hence, God desired Pharaoh to let His people go but hardened his heart so that he would not.  This is a biblical example of how God’s preceptive will and decretive will work together.        

We confess that the eternal decrees of God are executed “in the works of creation and providence.”  We confess that the Father (Heb 1:2), the Son (John 1:3) and the Holy Spirit (Gen 1:2) were all involved in the creation of all things, which includes those things visible and invisible.  We believe that creation had a beginning (Gen 1:1), which means that creation is not eternal but temporal and dependent upon God for its existence (Heb. 1:3).  We confess that all things both visible and invisible were created good (Gen. 1:31).  Finally, we confess that man was made by a direct act of God, in the image of God, and that he was created good (Gen 1:26-28).  Hence, by Scripture we refute and condemn all philosophies and sciences that confess that man was the product of impersonal chance + time.

We confess that after God had created all things that He continues to uphold all things through His acts of providence for the purpose of bringing forth his decretive will.  The acts of providence are those acts whereby God establishes his decretive will through “the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.”  In other words, God governs and guides the actions and thoughts of all created things towards “the manifestation of his glory.”  This is not to say that there is violence done to the “will of creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”  Although this may appear to be a contradiction, we must rest in the testimony of Scripture that this is true and that God understands how these two truths exist without contradiction. 

We confess that “God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without above, and against them, at his pleasure.”  From this we can conclude that God’s act of providence are not limited to what we perceive as the natural order of things, but that God at times uses miracles to establish his decretive will.  By miracles we mean those acts of providence which are “a less common kind of God’s activity in which he arouses people’s awe and wonder and bear witness to himself.”  In this regards, we maintain that miracles are acts of providence, and their purposes are to continue to establish God’s decretive will in history, especially in regards to redemptive history.  However, in the use of this definition, we do differentiate miracles as a different mode of providence from that of ordinary providence, by emphasizing that it is “a less common kind of God’s activity.”   Also, we must remember that miracles should be considered a direct act of God’s activity in creation, but only if we consider that all acts of providence are direct acts of God’s activity, such as the sending of rain (Matt. 5:45) or the feeding of birds (Matt. 6:26).  Hence, the difference between miracles and ordinary providence should be seen in the idea that miracles are less frequent then ordinary providence.

            The purpose of miracles are “to confirm the truthfulness of the gospel message, to bring help to those in need, to remove hindrances to people’s ministries, and to bring glory to God.”  While these indeed cover some of the redemptive elements of miracles, we must also confess that miracles also serve as a form of judgment to those who do not believe.  We see in Matthew 11:21-24, that Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum will receive greater judgment on the Day of Judgment because miracles were performed among them and they did not repent and believe.  Hence, miracles have the capacity to enjoin faith but also carry with them the potential to bring greater judgment to those who refuse to believe the Gospel message.  Hence, we see that miracles continue to bring about the manifestation of God’s glory by revealing both His mercy and His justice.    

            In regards to the working of miracles in the contemporary church, we must affirm that Scripture not only teaches but admonishes believers to pursue the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 14:1), which includes miracles, speaking in tongues and acts of healing (1 Cor. 12:7-11).  Although there are many arguments that miracles were limited to the apostles and their fellow workers, we must remember that in 1 Corinthians 12:28-29, Paul distinguishes the one who perform miracles or healing from the apostle and the prophet.  Furthermore, we must recognize that Paul’s letter to the Corinthians to pursue the gifts of the Spirit is not written to fellow apostles but written to the whole church.  Hence, Paul is enjoining all the members to seek the gifts of the Spirit, which includes miracles and healing.  Furthermore, in the book of James, James admonishes the elders to pray for those who are sick in order that they might be healed (James 5:14).  Hence, there is no reason to conclude that the gifts of the Spirit, including miracles and healing, have ceased.  A better question to ask is how to manage the gifts of the Spirit in order that they might bring edification to the church and help confirm the truthfulness of the Gospel.  After all, that is the heart of Paul’s discussion to the Corinthians in Chapters 12-14.    

Bibliography

Belgic Confession (1618). Internet. Available from http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/BelgicConfession.html; accessed 13 January 2007.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Vols. 20-21, The Library of Christian Classics.  Louisville: Westminster Press, 1960.

French Confession (1559). Internet. Available from http://www.creeds.net/reformed/frconf.htm; accessed 13 January 2007.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000.

Irish Articles (1615). Internet. Available from http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/IrishArticles.htm; accessed 13 January 2007.

Larger Catechism (1649). Internet. Available from http://www.creeds.net/reformed/Westminster/larger1.html; accessed 13 January 2007.

Nicene Creed (381). Internet. Available from http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm; accessed 13 January 2007.

The Definition of Chalcedon (451). Internet. Available from http://www.creeds.net/ancient/chalcedon.htm; accessed 13 January 2007.

Second Helvetic Confession (1566). Internet. Available from http://www.creeds.net/reformed/helvetic/index.htm; accessed 13 January 2007.

Westminster Confession of Faith (1646). Internet. Available from http://www.creeds.net/reformed/Westminster/c02.htm; accessed 13 January 2007.

Acknowledgement

I am in great debt to the teachings of Dr. R.J. Gore as well as his notes and powerpoints on the Doctrine of Christ, which have influenced and shaped my ideas about the doctrine of Christ.  His notes were particularly important in helping me outline and construct the following paper.

We confess with Scripture and the early Church Fathers that Jesus of Nazareth is both “God and man.”  In regards to His divinity, we confess that Jesus was “eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father” (John 1:1, 18; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:1-3).  Hence, we refute both the detestable Arians and Jehovah Witnesses who distort the Scriptures and make the Son of God unequal with and of a different substance then the Father by their assertion that He was a created being endowed with divinity. 

In regards to Jesus’ humanity, we affirm with Scripture and the testimony of the early Church fathers that Jesus, the eternal Son of God, took upon Himself in the fullness of time a human nature.  In other words, Jesus did not always have a human nature, He assumed a human nature when “he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary” and entered into our world through the Virgin birth (Luke 1: 27, 31, 35, 2:7; Gal 4:4).  Thus Christ became fully man just as we are, “yet free from all stain of sin” (Heb. 4:15).  Since we affirm that Jesus took upon Himself a human nature, this means that He took upon Himself both a human body and a human soul (Luke 2:52; Heb. 2:14-17).  In regards to His physical body, we affirm with Scripture that Christ indeed had a physical body before and after His resurrection (Luke 24:39; Heb 2:14).  Hence, we refute the Docetists who claim that Jesus did not have a body since in their belief the body is evil, and hence to them it is impossible that the Holy Son of God could be united with an evil substance, such as the body.  Indeed, the testimony of Scripture is clear that Jesus assumed a human body (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1) and will maintain a glorified human body throughout eternity (Luke 24:39; Heb 2:14).

Furthermore, we affirm that Jesus not only has a human body but He also has a human soul.  The Scripture is clear that Jesus had to grow in “wisdom and stature” (Luke 2:52), and that Jesus did not know the hour of God’s final judgment (Mat. 24:36).  If Jesus had only assumed a human body then these verses would be nonsensical.  For how can a divine soul learn? Or how can Jesus being fully equal in the divine nature with the Father not know the plans of the Father?  The only solution is that when Jesus took upon Himself a human nature, He took both a human body and a human soul.  In this regard, the human soul of Jesus could grow in wisdom and stature and not know all things even as the Father and the Son in His divine nature know all things. 

Furthermore, it is necessary for salvation that Jesus took upon Himself a human soul.  For it is human nature that is fallen, both body and soul (Gen 3:17; Jer. 17:9; Eph. 2:1-3; Ti. 1:15).  Therefore, in order for the whole person to be redeemed and saved, Christ had to take upon Himself both a human body and a human soul in order to redeem both aspects of the person (Heb 2:14-18, 4:15).  Hence we refute Apollinarianism, which asserts that Jesus had “a soul bereft of sense and reason,” and we refute Eunomius who taught that Jesus only came in the “flesh without a soul.”

Since we confess with Scripture that Jesus has both a divine and human nature, it is important that we distinguish the relationship between these two natures and discuss how they hold together.  According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the two natures of Christ “were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.”  It is important that we maintain that the two natures are distinct from one another, or else that which is “divine is humanized, and the human is deified.”  If we allow for a mixture of the two natures that would mean that the deity would share in human frailty, which is impossible.  Hence we refute the error of Eutychianism and Monophysitism, which argue that the human nature essentially became deified in the person of Christ.

It is also important that we note that the two natures are joined together through one person, not two persons.  Scripture never indicates that Jesus is composed of two persons.  We never see an inner dialogue in Jesus that would suggest multiple personalities, such as we see in the Scriptural references to the inner dialogue of the Trinity.  Furthermore, there are several Scriptural passages that refer to both the divine and human nature in Christ, yet it is clear that they are only talking to or about one person (Rom. 1:3-4; Gal. 4-5; Phil. 2:6-11; 1 John 4:2-3).  Therefore, Jesus is composed of two natures held together in one person.  Hence, we refute the error of Nestorianism which asserts that Jesus consisted of two natures and two persons. 

We confess that the work of Christ began with His state of humiliation, which began at the incarnation.  At the point of incarnation, Christ humbled Himself and took upon Himself a human nature (Gal. 4:4, Isa. 9:6, Heb/ 2:14, Phil. 2:7).  This is not to say that He ceased to be divine, rather it is to say that He chose to act through His human nature and not through His divine nature.  Hence, He experienced limitation.  He continued His state of humiliation by being born of woman and therefore being born under the law (Gal. 4:4).  In His state of humiliation, He became obedient to the will of the Father even to the point of suffering and death on the cross (Phil. 2:7-8).  On the cross, He experienced the wrath of God for the sin of the elect (Isa. 53; Matt. 27:46; II Cor. 5:12).  This wrath not only included physical suffering but also the suffering of the soul, since the punishment of humanity’s sin is both physical and spiritual (Matt. 10:28, 26:38, 27:46). He experienced physical death and was placed in a tomb, yet death could not hold Him and His body did not undergo decay (Matt. 27:59-60; Acts 2:23-24, 13:37). 

We confess that after three days in the tomb Christ physically arose from the dead with the same body that He had been crucified with (1 Cor 15:3-4; John 20:25,27) and hence moved from a state of humiliation to a state of exaltation.  His state of exaltation continued when He ascended into heaven (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-53; John 6:62) and took His place at the right hand of God our Father (Acts 2:33-36; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:3, 10:12; I Peter 3:22), where He makes intercession on our behalf (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25).  The completion and fullness of Christ’s state of exaltation will come about when He comes again to judge humans and angels at the end of the world (Matt. 25:31-34; John 5:27; Acts 10:42; Rom. 2:16; I Cor. 6:3; II Cor. 5:10; Jude 5-6).

We confess that in Christ’s states of humiliation and exaltation He fulfills the threefold office of prophet, priest, and king.  He fulfills the office of prophet in that He reveals to humanity the will and character of God (John 1:18; Heb. 1:1-2).  Furthermore, Scripture prophesied that the Christ would be a prophet (Deut. 18:18-19; Acts 3:22-26).  And Christ was recognized as a prophet (John 4:19, 25, 26).  He fulfills the office of priest “in his once offering himself a sacrifice without spot to God, to be reconciliation for the sins of his people; and in making continual intercession for them.”  Hence, He becomes the one who offers up the sacrifice (Heb. 9:11-12, 25, 10:12) and the one who is sacrificed once for all time (Heb. 9:28, 10:5-14).  He fulfills the office of king in that all authority in heaven and earth was given to Him (Matt. 28:18), and He continues to reign until all things are brought under subjection to Him (I Cor. 15:24-28).  Furthermore, the Scriptures prophesied that the Christ would be a king (Gen. 49:9-10; Psalm 2, 89; Luke 1:33).  The importance of Christ fulfilling the threefold office of prophet, priest, and king is that He fulfills the original offices that were intended for humanity, which Adam lost through the fall.  Hence, we can see in the work of Christ as the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace a recovery of the initial covenant that God made with Adam.  Therefore, as Adam was a covenant breaker, Christ becomes the covenant keeper, and this we confess is related to Christ’s work of redemption and atonement.

We confess that in the beginning God made a covenant with Adam called the Covenant of Life.  The Covenant of Life promised life to Adam if he kept the conditions of the covenant, which was “personal, perfect and perpetual obedience.”  Adam did not keep the covenant conditions and hence he received the covenant curse of death.   Adam being the head of the covenant also subjected all of his descendants, which includes all humanity, to the power of sin and death, and hence all of humanity became completely corrupted by sin and unable to do good since their wills follow their evil nature (Rom. 3:10-18, 8; Eph 2:3).  Out of love, God sought to redeem some of humanity and therefore sent His Son to make atonement for their sins by becoming the Covenant head of the elect. 

Christ’s atonement is a substitutionary atonement and hence twofold.  First, Christ suffers the penalties of all the elect because they are all covenant breakers.  This is done in order to satisfy God’s justice (Rom. 3:26).  On the cross, Christ took on all the sins of the elect and endured the penalty of their sin, which was the true wrath of God (Rom. 5:8, 10; II Cor. 5:21).  Thus, through Christ’s death the penalty of the elects’ covenant breaking is satisfied (Heb 2:17; I John 2:2) and his resurrection is a guarantee of that satisfaction (I Cor. 15).  The second aspect of Christ’s atonement is found in his active obedience.  Christ fulfills the covenant requirements on behalf of his people through his active obedience to the covenant requirements (Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:8).  Thus, He imputes his righteousness unto His people and they are now considered covenant keepers (Rom. 4:24-25, 5:17-19).    

We confess with Scripture and the guidance of the Westminster confession that the substitutionary atonement of Christ is limited only to the elect (Matt. 1:21, John 10:11, 26-27, 17:2; Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25; II Tim. 2:19).  Scripture testifies that election is not based on foreknowledge, as defined as knowing ahead of time the actions or thoughts of an individual (Rom. 9:11, 18, 11:5-6).  As we have noted early, under Adam all were subjected to sin and death and all fell into a sinful corruption that always choose sin over God (Rom. 3:10-18, 8; Eph 2:3).  When God chooses to apply Christ’s work of atonement to an individual all of the person’s sins are completely forgiven and he moves from death to life and becomes apart of God’s elect who will never fall away (Rom. 8:29-30; Eph 1:13).  We should not attempt to apply some equal distribution of grace and mercy to all humanity.  Rather, we must remember that it is God who “has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” (Rom. 9:18).

  Bibliography

Athanasian Creed (500). Internet. Available from http://www.creeds.net/ancient/Quicumque.html; accessed 19 March 2007.

Belgic Confession (1566). Internet. Available from http://www.creeds.net/reformed/belgic/index.htm; accessed 19 March 2007.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939.

The Definition of Chalcedon (451). Internet. Available from http://www.creeds.net/ancient/chalcedon.htm; accessed 19 March 2007.

French Confession (1559). Internet. Available from http://www.creeds.net/reformed/frconf.htm; accessed 19 March 2007.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000.

Larger Catechism (1649). Internet. Available from http://www.creeds.net/reformed/Westminster/larger1.html; accessed 20 March 2007.

Nicene Creed (381). Internet. Available from http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm; accessed 22 March 2007.

Second Helvetic Confession (1566). Internet. Available from http://www.creeds.net/reformed/helvetic/index.htm; accessed 19 March 2007.

Westminster Confession of Faith (1646). Internet. Available from http://www.creeds.net/reformed/Westminster/c02.htm; accessed 20 March 2007.

A Look in the Mirror

The water was hot, like his heart, not scolding, not lukewarm but hot.  It felt therapeutic and pleasurable to his hands as he mixed the soap in with the water.  The soap cleansed his hands and the water rinsed them. He had the urge to splash his face with the water and with little thought proceeded to do so.  The water warmed his entire face and left the fringes of his hair wet and moist.  It was refreshing and invigorating.  He reached for a paper towel and dried his face and hands.  He was alone and yet not alone.  He stared at himself in the mirror enjoying the moment and contemplating his present joy.  The Calvinist realized that it wasn’t really the water that brought this joy, it was the conversation; it was the friendship; it was the beginning of being understood. 

The dialogue hadn’t been long, but he felt that his long time Arminian friend, although not agreeing with him, was beginning to understand him and his perspective on the faith.  There is a joy in being understood.  There is a greater joy in being understood and being in agreement.  And while this greater joy should be hoped for and sought after, the Calvinist thought it shouldn’t be something that eclipses the joy of just being understood.  After all, he and his Arminian friend may come to understand one another entirely, but they may never agree with one another until the King returns.  This greater joy may be a long time coming but there is always hope.  But for now it was enough to truly enjoy understanding one another and maybe in the midst of understanding one another they might start agreeing with one another. 

This prospect pleased the Calvinist’s heart but at the same time it brought a shadow to his heart.  In attempt to make himself understood, he could become defensive and arrogant.  He knew he could be argumentative and biting to prove a point or maybe it was a response to dealing with rejection.  How the flesh divides!  He closed his eyes and lifted a prayer to their Father asking for the Spirit to grant he and his friend kindness, gentleness, and understanding towards one another.  He finished his prayer and thought about how to continue their conversation concerning free will and nature.  He looked in the mirror, smiled and said, “God can’t.” And with that he left the restroom to rejoin his Arminian friend.

The Joy of Kindness

As he passed through the restroom doors, his heart was excited about getting back to the discussion and he was looking forward to presenting some more of his thoughts on this subject.  He was the type that when caught up in his thoughts, you would see him walk with his head down and his hands before him making little pointed movements as if his ideas were visibly before him and he was counting and organizing them.  He was returning to a conversation with a dear friend.  Their history was intimate and full of memories.  His friend was a thinker and a doer.  He wasn’t the type to stand at the door and let a brother go without food and clothing.  He was a kind and caring friend.  

As the Calvinist approached the table where this conversation had voyaged over the last half hour, he looked up and was met with a surprise.  His Arminian friend wasn’t looking at him but staring out the window, but that was not the surprise.  His friend was a thinker and was no doubt staring out into the beauty of the day and thinking about the discussion.  The surprise was a piece of cake sitting next to his frappe and across the table was another piece next to the Arminian’s mocha.  The Calvinist had wanted to get the cake earlier, but it was too expensive for his budget so he had to settle for a cookie.  Upon seeing this gift, he had a suspicion that his friend knew that he wanted the cake and wanting to bless the Calvinist had gotten it for him while he was in the restroom. The kindness and warmth of friendship, such an act was indicative of his friend’s nature and love towards the Calvinist. 

Free Will and Nature Reviewed

“Oh, is this for me?” the Calvinist asked. The question seemed to pull the Arminian out of some deep intellectual meditation, and he noticed the Calvinist lowering himself into the seat.

“Oh yeah, buddy it’s for you.” said the Arminian but he then quickly added, either out of a desire to get back to the conversation or to avoid receiving praise for his gift or maybe a combination of both, “I’ve been thinking about our conversation, and specifically the way you’ve interpreted how an Arminian would engage this idea that the will acts according to the nature of an individual.  I want to share some thoughts on that but just to be clear let me be sure that I understand you fully.” 

“Calvinist believe that the will of an individual acts according to their nature.  And since a Calvinist believes that the nature of humanity is depraved, enslaved, or infected with sin because of Adam’s sin this causes people not to choose, desire or want to come to Christ. Correct.”

The Calvinist paused to think about the definition and said, “Well, I’ve been thinking about Romans 7 and thinking that that is probably an unbeliever.  And it states in verses 22 and 23 “For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.” So in light of this passage, if this is a nonbeliever then I would add just for clarity sake that it is possible for sinful humanity to want or desire God from time to time.  After all they are still created in the image of God.  But I would say that those desires or longings for God are subject to the power of sin.  Therefore, although they recognize, desire and/or want God at times, they will ultimately not come to Him because their sinful nature produces desires greater then the desire to come to Him. 

The Arminian produced a look that communicated understanding and said, “Then perhaps we should say it like this:

  “Calvinist believe that the will of an individual acts according to their nature.  And since a Calvinist believes that the nature of humanity is depraved, enslaved, or infected with sin because of Adam’s sin this causes people to have desires or wants that are stronger then any desire to come to Christ so they choose those other desires and not the desire to come to Christ. Correct.”

The Calvinist nodded his head in affirmation and took delight that his friend was grasping and understanding what the Calvinist believed.  This didn’t mean that he agreed with the Calvinist but simply he recognized that the Arminian understood his perspective.

The Arminian continued and said, “So a Calvinist defines freedom in two ways.  The first is they’re free to act according to their nature.  Second, Christ frees them from their sinful nature.” The Calvinist nodded. “Now, if an Arminian uses this framework of free will and nature then there’s really on two ways to approach it.  Either we say that the will doesn’t act according to one’s nature or one’s nature is such that they are able to choose God freely or not.  I would like to study Romans 3 and Romans 7 some more before talking about the nature of humanity…”  The Calvinist interjected, “You may want to read Ephesians 2:1-3 as well.”

Free Will: To Act or Choose Against One’s Nature?

The Arminian acknowledged the additional suggestion and continued on.  “Let’s talk about you’re concept of freedom in regards to the will act according to nature.  You say that a person who acts according to their nature is free, but to me this doesn’t seem like freedom.  It seems like instinct, like we’re just animals following our programming.  And with all due respect, how is this freedom? And how do you support this idea?”

The Calvinist took a minute to gather his thoughts because the questions were legitimate, and they we’re getting to the heart of what freedom is.  The Calvinist answered, “Well, I think Romans 3 and 7, as well as Ephesians 2:1-3 speak to the idea that we act and follow our nature. Romans 7 even indicates that when a person realizes that they’re doing wrong the desire to act according to the sinful nature overpowers that realization. They’re powerless to act towards doing God’s will because their sinful desires are stronger and ultimately more appealing.  However, you stated you wanted to read over those passages in more depth and I think that is very prudent and wise. 

God Can’t

So I’ll come at the question from another perspective.  Let’s consider God and His will.  Now would you say that God has free will?”  I mean does God do whatever He desires and wants?  From my perspective, if anyone is free it is God.  If anyone truly has the ability to choose from limitless possibilities or options then surely God would have the power to do so, right?  Well maybe.  Consider James 1:13, “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.”  Now this verse indicates that God cannot be tempted with evil.  God cannot sin!  It’s impossible! He can’t choose any and all options from a limitless list because some of those options are sinful choices. God can’t choose sin! God Can’t! Now why is that?  Well, I believe it’s because His nature will not allow him to choose sin.  He is Holy and Righteous! His very nature, His essence cannot stand evil or its presence.  In fact, His nature desires utmost to consume and destroy sin.  Now, with that in mind does God have free will?  If you believe that free will is the ability to act or choose according to the nature of a person then yes God is free.  He freely chooses not to sin because He hates, abhors and desires to have nothing to do with sin because that is, was and will always be His nature.  Is he an animal? Is this instinct? Well I wouldn’t say it that way. I don’t want to characterize God with such base terminology.  But I would say that God acts according to His nature, and I would say that if any being has Free Will then it is God.  He is Free!  However, if we say that Free will is the ability to act, or choose contrary to one’s nature then we have a problem, namely that God does not have Free will. You see if God’s nature is holy and righteous, he cannot act or choose contrary to that holiness or righteousness.  Scripture explicitly says that in James 1:13.  It seems to me that this definition of free will: to act or choose contrary to one’s nature is a faulty view of freedom.” 

The Calvinist came to a stop.  He could feel that he was getting passionate and he wanted to slow down and let his friend think about this perspective.  The Calvinist set back in his chair and stared at the window so that he wouldn’t pressure or make his friend feel that he needed to respond immediately.  The Arminian considered this thought for a long time. And after some time said, “This is an interesting line of reasoning.  I would like to pray about it.  I too would be hard pressed to say that God doesn’t have free will.  But then I wonder if we should consider God in these same categories?” 

The Calvinist considered the thought and said, “Well, I have another thought about this that’ll be closer to home.  But I want to encourage you to think about this perspective because perhaps there’s another way to see this idea of Free Will and God’s nature and it would be good to have your perspective and thoughts on it.  I try to see things from different perspectives, but I must confess that my Calvinist eyes can influence the way I see things.”

Neither Will You

And then instinctively they both took a moment of silence and almost in syncretized motion they attended to their cake.  They both ate in meditation.  They were thinking about the discussion not to mention giving their minds a rest.  Then the Calvinist broke the silence, “Now, I know you have a lot to think about.  You want to study Romans 3, 7 and Eph. 2:1-3, and now I’m sure you’ll want to think about God’s Free Will and Nature, but let me place one more thought before you.  Do you think we’ll have free will in the New Heavens and the New Earth?  I mean do you think we’ll be able to sin in the New Heavens and the New Earth?  It seems to me that Scripture indicates that sin will be done away with at that time.  But here’s the thing, if free will is the ability to choose or act contrary to our nature then I think our ability to have free will ends after the Great White Throne of Judgment.  Even if you narrow it down and say that free will is the ability to choose God or sin, then it doesn’t seem like we’ll have free will in eternity because if sin is done away with then how will we have choice.  How will we be able to act contrary to our nature?  So to put all this together this is what I think.  God has free will because he acts according to His nature.  When we are glorified are nature will be completely holy and set on God’s Will.  Like God, we’ll never want or desire sin ever, because our nature has been changed so that we’re completely holy and righteous.  Therefore, if you define free will as acting or choosing according to your nature then God is free, and we now and will always have free will in heaven.  But if you define free will as the ability to act or choose contrary to one’s nature then God doesn’t have free will, and when we’re in the New Heavens and the New Earth in our glorified state we won’t have free will either. 

What do you think…?

Introduction

My dear brothers and sisters in the faith, I introduce myself to you and this website with a series of articles concerning the question of free will.  A controversial subject no doubt, yet a necessary discussion nonetheless. One may ask why bring up this discussion and to that several reasons can be espoused. One reason can stem from the flesh. We reformed minded believers have a tendency to set our fellow brothers and sisters straight on this subject, not necessarily for their good but for own ego trip. We conjure up this subject so that we can stand resolutely and say, “See we’re right and you’re wrong.  Bask in our knowledge.”  This is no more than knowledge puffing itself up.  Now can I say that I am immune to this sentiment? Absolutely not. I’m young, immature and filled with a need to find security and approval from my perceived intelligence.  Hence, it’ll be a struggle not to slip into the flesh and just try to start showing off my knowledge and prove someone wrong.  I pray I overcome the temptation but if not I indulge your forgiveness.  But besides the flesh, there’s a spiritual reason to discuss this subject (it’s not always discussed for controversy and pride). Reformed minded or Calvinist minded believers can see in the discussion of free will an opportunity to assert truth, clarify the nature of humanity, understand the love of God, put God at the center of history, and give Him the Glory due to Him.  It has the practical result of inspiring great humility and praise in the believer.  So with that lengthy introduction having now been said, I implore you to step into this dialogue with openness and grace as befitting brothers and sisters in the faith. 

The Question of Free Will Part 1:  Mochas and Frappes, Free Will and Nature

The Starbuck’s Discussion

            An Arminian and a Calvinist walk into a Starbuck and the Arminian says to the cashier, “I believe in free will so I choose a low fat tall Mocha with no whip cream.”  The cashier busy with the day only heard “low fat tall Mocha with no whip cream.” The Calvinist says, “That is good. I believe in free will as well. I want a grande Mocha frappe with extra whip cream, and a cookie.”  The Arminian jokingly says, “Don’t you mean you were predestined to have that order?”  The Calvinist with a concealed grin on his face said, “I wanted this Mocha frappe so I chose to have it with my own will; God didn’t force me to get it.”  The Arminian a bit irritated and confused turned to the cashier and said, “Make it a venti Mocha.  I believe that this is going to be a long conversation.”

The Confusion of Free Will

            The Arminian sips his venti Mocha and listens to the Calvinist say that God is sovereign, that he ordained and predestined everything that comes to pass, and that he chooses those who are going to be saved.  The Arminian agrees with some of these points, such as God’s sovereignty, but finds other points, such as God choosing those who are going to be saved as disturbing and uncomfortable.   But then the Calvinist puts down his frappe and says, “Of course, just because God is sovereign and that he chooses who is going to be saved that doesn’t mean that he forces those who are going to be saved to choose Jesus Christ against their will, nor does it mean that he takes away the ability to choose away from humanity. In fact, when God does call an individual to salvation they actually begin to have a will that is free.”  At this point, the Arminian becomes a little frustrated and says “That sounds so contradictory.  How can God choose someone to come to Him without infringing on their free will?”  When the Calvinist states that this is not a contradiction, the Arminian growing irritated has the urge to throw the Venti Mocha on the Calvinist. 

Free Will Defined:

The Calvinist realizing that he was confusing and irritating his Arminian friend decided to clarify how he and other Calvinist understand free will.  He began, “When a Calvinist says that he believes in free will, he means simply this:

The will of an individual will always act according to the individual’s nature.

The person is free to act according to their nature.

Therefore, we humans who have an inherited sinful nature from Adam are enslaved to that sinful nature.  We will choose sin and we will not choose God because of our sinful nature.  In order for us to choose God, we must receive a new nature which creates a new will that’ll choose God. 

Now at this point, I must say that there is a debate amongst Calvinist concerning whether a person with a sinful, depraved nature would have good desires toward God. Some say that Romans 7 is not about a Christian, but a sinner. And if so, Romans 7:14-28 shows that a depraved individual can yearn or desire to do the things of God but the sad reality is that they are in bondage to their sinful nature and are not free to do the things of God; they lack the power and ability to do things of God.  Others will say that Romans 7 is about a Christian and I assume that they use Romans 3:10-18 as a description of the sinful nature and therefore the statement in Romans 3:11 “no one understands; no one seeks for God” (ESV) would indicate that the sinful nature at its core doesn’t seek for God or the things of God.  I tend to think in this way but I’ve only begun to understand the other Calvinist’s opinion recently, so I’ll have to consider if that is the way we are to look at the depraved nature of man as it has been passed down to us by Adam. 

But regardless, the Calvinist sees that the will of a sinner is in bondage to the sinful nature.  The will of a depraved, sinful individual, which every Christian had or every future Christian has now, is free to act and choose according to their sinful nature, but it is not free to choose God because that is contrary to their sinful nature.  Remember that, for the Calvinist, the will is bound to the sinful nature.  The will is not free to act outside or contrary to the nature of the individual.”

Having ended his oration, the Calvinist stopped to let his friend consider these Calvinistic ideas about free will, reached for his cookie and took a bite.  When he finished his bite, he thought it important to show how this thought of free will and nature applied to Arminian thought.  So he began his next oration.

            “So how does the Arminian view free will?  Well, let me pause and say that I want to be cautious here because I’m a Calvinist and this is how I understand the Arminian view of free will.  I don’t think I’m wrong about this perspective but you may not phrase it the way I do now. 

I’ll try to use different ways of stating how I think you would view it from the framework I’ve been talking about.

Now, an Arminian will say that free will means:

Every possible option is open for the person to choose from. If not, then the person is not truly free.
Freedom is viewed as limitless options of choices.

An individual has the ability to choose contrary to their nature.”

The Calvinist stopped there in order to see if what he had said would be considered an acceptable view of free will by an Arminian. He watched the Arminian put down his venti Mocha and noticed that his friend was reflecting on what he had been saying.  The Arminian then said, “I think the ability to choose contrary to one’s nature is not necessarily a true statement of Arminian thought in this framework.  After all, you may consider the idea that perhaps the nature of humanity is a nature that still gives humanity the ability to choose God or not.  In other words, the individual’s nature may not be depraved to the point that it lacks the ability or desire to choose God. Perhaps, after the fall, human nature was depraved to the point that they couldn’t seek after God, but perhaps God in his mercy provides each individual with enough grace that their nature is changed to the point where they are able to choose equally God or not.”

The Calvinist was about to answer directly to this question but decide to go a different direction.  He said, “The question of what kind of nature a person has is something that we should dialogue about.  But I think we have at least come to clarity or agreement that how we view the will of an individual depends upon how we understand their nature.  I hope you understand now why I affirm the idea of free will. But if you’re on board with me about the will following the nature of an individual then we can dialogue about the state of the fallen nature of humanity now.  But after that discussion we can and will talk about the will of God in relation to his nature, the will of the saints in heaven and their nature, and the will of Adam and of Christ according to their nature.  These discussions I believe will ultimately lead us into great mystery and praise to God.  But let’s talk more about our thoughts on the fallen nature of man and see what Scriptures says. You know what? Before we do that I need a break; I need to go the restroom.” 

The Calvinist left his seat thinking about the conversation and the Arminian stayed in his seat thinking about the conversation.

Interlude

Now while these two are on break, if you have any questions or comments about what you have heard let’s talk about it.