Prayer for the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany

Almighty and everlasting God, who dost govern all things in
heaven and earth: Mercifully hear the supplications of thy
people, and in our time grant us thy peace; through Jesus
Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the
Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

On Providence (part 2)--Foreknowledge or Foreordaination

It seems as though many are confused when they speak of God's foreknowledge; too often it is equated with His action of foreordination. I find this confusion even amongst many of my Reformed friends. It would seem that foreknowledge and foreordination are not the same thing. Indeed the two are not synonymous. The former is simply God's knowledge of all things future and the later is his determiniation of all things (including future events). One is passive and the other is active. Consider Peters words in his sermon at Pentecost,

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men (Acts 2.22, 23. Emphasis added).

Peter here clearly makes a distinction between God's foreknowledge and his foreordination. Paul makes the same distinction in that often cited passage in Romans:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (8.28-30. Emphasis added).

The actions of foreknowing and predestining are two distict acts performed by God. It follows then that God's simply knowing things is not the same as His predestining them. Obviously, there is a relationship between the two but what is the exact relationship between God's knowledge and his ordiation? This is an important question and one that hopefully we can explore in more depth as it will probably be the focus of my thesis.

On Providence (Intro)

I am currently working on my thesis and am looking to write on the doctrine of providence (thus the above answer to the Shorter Catechism question, "What are God's works of Providence?") . I hope to be finished in December and be done with this masters degree thing--at least until seminary. My plan is to write some thoughts as I go along. I'm sure you'll (whoever you are) be just as sick of providence as I by the time this is over.

On Providence (Part 1)--Where's the Beef?

One of my undergraduate professors often spoke of the tensions that are found in Scripture. The tension that came up most (as it often does) is that between divine sovereignty and human freedom (and responsibility). Most often the tension is used as a weapon against those who proudly wear the name of John Calvin. Since Calvin stressed (though not to the extent many believe--only 4 of the 70 chapters in the Institutes are explicitly about predestination) God's eternal decree of all that occurs in history, he (and those who would agree with him) is often charged with certain crimes, of which the most often cited is making God the author of sin. Whether or not Calvinism is committed to God's being the author of sin, it certainly carries with it tensions, but my professor wasn't a Calvinist by any means. He was (though he preferred to be called a 'Wesleyan') an Arminian. This means he was committed to a view of 'sovereignty' where God hasn't actively decreed anything. He uses his foreknowledge to know what is going to happen in the future. He fore-knows the radically free decisions of his creatures only because of his prescience; He does know them because he has fore-ordained them. But if this is the case, where is the tension? Why is it a problem for God to look down time's corridor and see the free will decisions of his creatures? I see no tension in this, especially when it is applied to the special act of God whereby He has elected some and passed over others. If God has elected me on the basis of my free will decision, how could there possibly be any tension in that? Consider Calvin's words,

At the outset, then, let my readers grasp that providence means not that by which God idly observes from heaven what takes place on earth, but that by which, as keeper of the keys, he governs all events. Thus it pertains no less to his hands than to his eyes (Institutes I.xvi.4).

My professor would think of sovereignty and providence as coming in a very general form. Thus, God determines the general perimeters in which men make decisions, but doesn't determine anything beyond that. God then uses his foreknowledge to know what specifically is going to happen within the general outlines He set up but does not determine the specifics of what is going to happen. So, He may determine that I shall wear clothes to work on Monday, but he hasn't determined (though He foreknows) that I shall wear a white shirt and tattered jeans. But again, I ask, where is the tension? How could it possibly be a problem that God simply knows what shirt I'm going to wear? But if Calvin is correct, the tension comes only when God determines the specifics of history including the decisions of men. He continues,

Not so crass is the error of those who attribute governance to God, but of a confused and mixed sort, as I have said, namely, one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifically direct the actions of individual creatures (ibid, emphasis added).

It seems pretty straight forward that a providence that is not particular in nature, that is, one that doesn't include all and every event (including the decisions of men), is not in danger of coming under the title of 'tension'. It is only when there is a specific determination of specific actions of creatures that the tention arises. I think there are other problems with the 'foreknowledge' model of sovereignty and providence, but I'll leave those for other posts.

One Fine Evening

Kirsten left early for women's book club tonight in order to regain some sanity and so it was just Aiden and I left to fend for ourselves for supper. Well...Kirsten actually started supper before we left, but I had to finish it. (It turned out, by the way, quite well!). Anyway, Aiden and I shared a plate of spaghetti and then just hung out. We wrastled, tickled and talked. We listened to the Doug Wilson/James White debate over the nature of baptism (Aiden thought Doug Wilson won) and then sang a bit. He 'amened' our nightly prayer and told me 'night' as I left him to slumber. Now I'm enjoying a glass of Black Swan Shiraz and Merlot and blogging a bit while listening to a bit of Pearl Jam. Soon, I'll finish up studying for my lesson for Sunday night. By then Kirsten will be home. We'll talk about book club, go to sleep and have donuts in the morning with the Jewetts. One good night!

Quote

If we will disbelieve every thing, because we cannot certainly know all things; we shall do much-what as wisely as he, who would not use his Legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no Wings to fly.
~John Locke

On the Sabbath

Yet one more thing I wrote a while back. Soon, I'll write and post something recent. Until then, re-runs until I think of something new.

The Sabbath came home last weekend for me. Now, it's not as though I never thought about the Sabbath, indeed I have (I even read a book on it--which, by the way is great,"Celebrating the Sabbath" by Bruce A. Ray). I assent (at least mentally) to the commandment "Keep the Sabbath holy". But last week it became real. It became something I recognized I needed. Working, having a 3 month old baby and a wife, and being in school (with papers and home work) the week becomes incredibly busy, to say the least. Often, thinking (specifically) on the things of God is sent to the very back burner, if not taken off the stove all together. It seems like all I read and think about is philosophy of language and Descartes. Enter the Sabbath . God has given me a day wherein I don't have to think about school or class or philosophy or work at all. I don't have to worry about lesson plans or grading papers or dealing with 9th graders. I don't have to make sure Mike's sermons are on the internet. I GET (!)--God commands me--to think about Him and His Word. I have the privilege of reading the theology that I want to be reading throughout the week. I get to have my soul and mind rested (as well as my body). So, last Sunday, I took a nap with my family. Played with my son. Talked with my wife. Read John Piper and CS Lewis and the best book on worldview I've read to date (Corneilius Plantinga's "Engaging God's World"). You see, the world will keep spinning if I take a day off from worrying about all the other things I have to do. God can handle it. The flip side of all this (there's always a flip side) is that I have to make better use of the other six days God has given me to work. I tend to be lazy and realizing the rest God offers me motivates me to work harder the days He has given me for that purpose. Resting presupposes working.

My own personal IT guy

Jeff Sapp is responsible for the professional grade aesthetics now playing at the blog. Thanks, Jeff.