"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (I Cor. 10: 13)
What does this verse teach us about the permissive will of God? It speaks of God not suffering, permitting, or allowing the occurrence of events. It shows that God's "will" is involved in his permitting. God's permission is "willing" permission. Thus, as we have shown, God's permitting is both done willingly and knowingly. Thus, what is permitted to exist, or to occur, is still the result of God's prior willing, and his willing is his decreeing (or predestinating), and therefore cannot be excluded from the decrees of God. Can temptations occur if God declares that he "will not suffer" them? Certainly not. Thus, to say that nothing occurs that God does not permit is all the same as saying that nothing occurs that God did not will or choose to occur. Notice these other instances where divine permission was required for the occurrence of things.
"And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ." (Luke 4: 41)
"Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." (Acts 14: 16)
"So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine." (Matt. 8: 31)
Clearly these verses also show how the divine permission is necessary for the occurrence of acts and events. The demons could speak only as they were permitted to do so, could move here or there only as they were suffered. Nations could only walk in their own ways because God allowed it. Thus Paul said that it is "in him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17: 28)
Clearly the story of Job also teaches the same things relative to the permissive will of God. All that Satan did to Job was a result of God's willing permission. Satan could do no more than what God willingly allowed him to do. God's willing permission was even viewed by Job as the cause of his sufferings. Though it was Satan who directly "took away" what Job possessed, yet Job says of God - "the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away." (Job 1: 21) Job said - "What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips." (2: 10) This is similar to the words of Jeremiah, that were cited in a previous chapter: "Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" (3: 37, 38) What can "come to pass" apart from God "commanding," God willing it? Further, Jeremiah is in agreement with Job and affirms that this includes both "evil and good." The experience of Job was a "temptation," and we have already seen that Paul says that "no temptation" occurs apart from God's willingly allowing it.
These simple facts should have brought agreement between the Conditonalist and Absoluter factions, or at least kept them from dividing and declaring each other in disorder. Sin occurs because God allows it, not because he directly produces it. But, this allowance is necessary for sin's occurrence. Further, God has good reason for permitting things, including sin. He has determined to bring a greater good into existence by his permitting sin.
In the last chapter the extremism of the Absoluter faction was examined, chiefly by looking at the analysis of Elder Sylvester Hassell. Most of the Absoluter extremes cited by Hassell were shown to be worthy of valid criticism. A modern Hardshell, Elder Joe Hildreth, wrote:
"The Absolute view continued to be evidenced even among churches not engulfed with this doctrine. For instance, such expressions as, “Brother Joe, you have to be born a Primitive Baptist,” and, “You will join the church when God gets ready for you.” Yet, many, many times since a child have I heard preachers say, “God is not going to take you by the hair of your head and bring you into the church.” I have never heard it preached from the pulpit, but some advocated that “all events and things are working together for good.” ("Primitive Baptists And The 20th Century," 2010)
http://www.marchtozion.com/history/93-primitive-baptists-and-the-20th-century
Elder Hildreth, who I met in my early years in the Hardshell church, sees remnants of "Absolutism" even among his Conditionalist faction. The first of those remnants regarded joining the Hardshell cult. The view that one becomes a member of the Hardshell church in the same way he is regenerated, i.e. unconditionally and irresistibly, was indeed a teaching of the Absoluter faction. But, how did such a view originate? Was it not because the first Hardshells saw conversion as being born again? Like all Calvinists, the Hardshells believe that being "born again" is irresistible, the result of an efficacious or effectual call. Joining the church of Christ, or becoming a member of the "body of Christ," was part of that conversion/new birth experience, according to the first Hardshells.
The Conditionalist faction, however, rejected the idea that "conversion" was any part of being "born again." To them, being converted was a mere "time salvation," what was not certain for all the elect and called, but what was only true of those regenerated souls who chose, or who did not resist, becoming a Christian. Becoming a Christian, or member of Christ's visible body, to the Conditionalist, was not necessary for being eternally saved, but was a free choice that the born again child of God made, apart from any divine compulsion. Becoming a member of the church was a result of willing obedience, not a result of irresistible grace.
The Absoluter no doubt erred in telling people that they should wait upon the Lord to drag them into the church. Even it is true that men become Christians by irresistible grace, it is not apart from commands and exhortations to duty that this is accomplished. This was the error of the Absoluter.
Next, Hildreth mentions the fact that some in the Conditionalist faction were saying that "all things work together for good to those who love God" (Rom. 8: 28) and he sees this as being "Absolutism," and what is false. But, the view that "all things work together for good" for the Christian is what the scriptures plainly affirm, and is what all the first Hardshells affirmed to be the truth. Numerous citations from the first generation Hardshells could be given to prove this fact. Thus, the "primitive" view of Romans 8: 28 was to interpret "all things" as all inclusive, and so the Conditionalist view that "all things" really mean only "some things," is a novel interpretation.
The Romans 8: 28 Battleground
All the first, and most of the second generation of Hardshells, had no problem with interpreting "all things" in Romans 8: 28 to include the evils in the lives of the people of God. They included their temptations, and both their failures and successes.
Do "all things" work together for evil to those who do not love God? Who can deny that this is so? Of course, the working together "for good" has ultimacy in view, what is the end, final destiny, or final fulfillment of all things. Paul is not affirming that all things work together for the mere temporal good of God's chosen and foreknown. "For (unto) good" is not fulfilled or completely realized in this life, but in the life to come, when the elect are glorified and dwell in their eternal state.
All things will finally work to the detriment (evil) of those who do not love God when they are confined in the eternal prison of Gehenna and Lake of Fire. All their works will judged as evil, even those that are externally good. This is evident because "whatever is not of faith is sin." (Rom. 14: 23) This is why the great king said - "the plowing of the wicked is sin." (Prov. 21: 4)
Do the sins of the saints produce eternal good? That is the chief question in debate. But, have we not shown that the sins of the wicked produce eternal evil? Have we not shown that all that occurs can only occur if God wills it, permissively or otherwise? Do not both sides agree that the existence of evil is owing to God's willing it? Do not both sides agree that God chose to permit the existence of sin and evil for good reasons? For a good end? To bring some greater good out it by overruling it?
How comforting is it to believe that only a few things work together for the eternal good of the elect? How is it comforting to believe that sin exists without any good purpose? That it's existence is meaningless? That sin is an unforeseen accident?
Further, let it be remembered that God's permitting an event, or suffering its existence, does not necessitate that one believe that God permits evil because evil is the end, that this is what he ultimately takes pleasure in. Sin is a distasteful means. For instance, men choose to suffer the evil of pain, in physical exercise, not because they enjoy the pain, as an end in itself, but because it is a means to a greater good, the good of health.
In the final chapters in this series we will look at some more historical writings on this subject.
"Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that." (James 4: 13-15)
No comments:
Post a Comment