Between Predestination to Good and Foreordination to Evil

The following excerpt is taken from the introductory chapter of John Forbes’ book, Predestination and Freewill and the Westminster Confession of Faith: with Explanation of Romans ix.

The following observations are offered not in the vain expectation of solving the intrinsic difficulties necessarily connected with mysteries far transcending the grasp of our finite minds, but in the humble hope of clearing away some of the factitious difficulties which human speculations have superadded; and more particularly for the purpose of pointing out the palpable distinction, which has been so generally overlooked, between predestination to good, and foreordination to evil; between election as originating with God, and reprobation as originating with the creature; and thence deducing the consequences which flow from this important distinction.

The distinction itself is manifestly implied in the following carefully weighed statement of the Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. iii. 1. (1) “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet (2), so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” Here both sides of the question seem to receive their due weight. (1) God’s free predestination is strongly asserted, and yet (2) man’s freewill duly maintained. All things are declared to be ordained from eternity by God, good or bad, yet with this most important distinction, that while God is the author, that is, the originating cause of all that is good, He is not “the author of sin,” that is, the originating cause of the evil in the hearts of His creatures.

But if God is not “the author of sin,” the creature must be its author. God has delegated to man a portion of His own power, however small, yet sufficient to constitute him an independent agent by giving him a will which can originate an act opposed to God’s will. Sin is the breaking off of the creature’s will from God’s will. But God’s will cannot oppose His own will; it must therefore be the self-willed and self-originated act of the creature. God is the source of all good, and of good only. Hence we deduce the universal principle—

All good originates from God.

All evil originates from the creature.

If this principle be kept steadily in view, it will dissipate much of the error and difficulty that have gathered around the subjects of our inquiry.

Predestination is thus divested of its most objectionable aspect. All things are predestinated by God, both good and evil, but not prenecessitated, that is, causally preordained by Him, unless we would make God “the author of sin”. Predestination is thus an indifferent word, in as far as the originating author of anything is concerned,* God being the originator of good, but the creature of evil. Predestination, therefore, means that God included in His plan of the world every act of every creature, good or bad. Having decreed to create freewill beings, that is, creatures having the power of breaking off, or not breaking off, that state of creaturely dependence of their wills on His holy will, and of union to Himself in which He had formed them, and knowing what each in the exercise of his freewill would choose, even though it were the evil, He included it in His plan, and to this extent foreordained it, overruling it to subserve His own wise and holy purposes. If in one sense, therefore, He may be considered as the first cause of all, yet is He but the permissive, not the causative or originating author of sin.

*Author’s comment:
Predestination, as generally understood, includes both good and evil. The distinction (afterwards adverted to) made by the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and of the Authorised Version, between Predestination and Foreordination, by confining the former to the foreordination of the Elect only, while Foreordination includes evil as well as good, has not been generally observed; otherwise it might perhaps have prevented the neglect of the important distinction on which we insist.

… In predestination the more frequent conception regards the foreordination of the Elect to salvation, and because with it is also combined (though a perfectly distinct question) a direct causal influence of God, which originates, carries on, and perfects the work of salvation in the Elect, the idea has been improperly extended to the predestination of the reprobate, as if some causal influence were exerted by God in His decreeing or permissively preordaining their foreseen perseverance in sin and consequent condemnation.

 

God’s Hatred and Wrath

It is unfortunate when it is not properly distinguished how it is that God’s Wrath is not to be confused with our notions of man’s wrath (which “does not work the righteousness of God,” James 1:20).

I ask a simple question: if God is angry with and hates the unrighteous man, does that mean God is malicious?

Answer: Ephesians 4:31. That is, let all abhorrence, and wrath, and anger, and dissatisfaction, and accusations be grounded in and begotten of the ministry of reconciliation that we have received from Christ, and let them not be mixed with ill-will. If you can apprehend this spiritual principle, you will have an inkling of the beauty of God’s righteous indignation.

Moreover, anyone who thinks that God only “loves” and never “hates” people today, because it is the NEW Testament dispensation, need to familiarize themselves with the rest of John chapter three.

John 3:14-17

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Immediately followed by verse 18,

He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

And, again, verse 36,

He that believes on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him.

The difficulty with rightly handling the seeming antagonism between divine Love and Wrath begins with the realization that God is declared to be “Love” (1 John 4:8); and nowhere in Scripture revelation is God equally declared to be “Wrath.” This priority is evident enough in James 2:13b, “mercy rejoices over judgment,” and in another place, “As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” Ezekiel 33:11.

In the same manner that we might understand the Trinity as One Substance: so we may also consider Wrath to be of One Substance with Love. Love and Wrath are not the same, but they are unified inseparably and magnify each other in perfect complement. And to continue in Trinitarian language: Love is the Origin (or Prime Substance) from which Grace proceeds forth. And, where is Wrath in this scheme? It is derived from Grace. I like the way R. A. Finlayson explained this phenomena, when he said, “Hell is an encounter with the character and will of God. God’s nature is holy, and His character is unsullied righteousness. For the unholy to mix with holiness is Hell.” That is to say, for the creature that is spiritually corrupt to receive the pure Grace of God is as Isaiah 33:14, “The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness has surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?” For the Presence of God is unapproachable Light and in Him there can abide neither darkness nor shadow of turning. Even as we read, “For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you.” Psalm 5:4.

From this, you may have noticed, I literally define divine Wrath as God’s pure, good, and life-abounding Grace shed upon the obstinate and rebellious soul. To reiterate, it is not Love, properly in itself, which defines Wrath but rather it is the object which Love is set upon — this is how God can Love and Hate the same object at the same instance. For it is the very power of the holiness of Love that destroys the ungodly and gives fury to the tempests of hell-fire. From here, we may begin to properly consider the insurmountable contradiction of how a Holy God could ever dwell in peace with the condemned sons of men; for the very Grace of God is Hell to the wicked. Therefore let all men worship the God of all Grace who has made atonement for our sins according to the Scriptures: the Gospel of His Beloved Son.

 

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

A Christian Brother asked me to put together a response to the following article:

I’d love to hear your comments on this topic and post. Please review the article below. Till then, God-speed brothers

http://theopenlife.blogspot.com/2009/10/which-comes-first-regeneration-or-faith.html

I have often corresponded in years past with the author of TheOpenLife blog on the SermonIndex forums and I disagreed with him then too. : )
The following critique is in no way meant to be derogatory against my fellow and outstanding Christian brother.

I would disagree with the statement that there is a “sense in which regeneration precedes faith.” As it is, Faith logically precedes Regeneration. And while it is true that “There is no such thing as a faithless regenerate person, nor are there unregenerate persons who posses real faith in Christ”; it is not simultaneous in the sense that Michael explains it. To say otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. I completely agree with Michael’s description, “regeneration is a sovereign and monergistic act, etc.” But you will notice, he does not similarly describe what Faith is. But from briefly reviewing his link, “The Relative Freedom of the Will,” it is evident enough that man’s Faith is also being defined as “a sovereign and monergistic act, etc.” Which is to say, when God regenerates the obstinate heart, Saving Faith is instantly generated. Therefore God becomes both the agent of man’s Salvation, Faith, and the agent of man’s act upon Faith. What is man’s role? Nothing; he is entirely a passive respondent (ie. a puppet who’s strings are being pulled). This is supposedly an attempt to preserve God’s sovereignty, but it has no such intended effect. Positively, concerning salvation, it is conceivable how this view of God’s active work of grace could lead us to think like this; however, Negatively, concerning reprobation and damnation, because of this construction of God’s sovereign grace, God is logically the Author of Sin, as well. And this we know to be impossible, God cannot sin neither does He tempt (or cause) any man to evil. The Epistle of James makes this abundantly clear. While it is true that we often read “God tempted them, etc.” the context is always an external or providential temptation; wherein opportunity is given to test and prove the hearts of men, so that it may be manifest whether or not they sincerely love God with their whole hearts. Whereas James speaks of the internal movement of the soul to sin. God is never identified as the cause or agent of man’s sin either actively or passively. As John Forbes defined this universal principle,

“All good (and only good) originates from God. All evil originates from the creature.”

Therefore the creature is capable of originating an act which is not God’s.

For “God has delegated to man a portion of His own power, however small, yet sufficient to constitute him as an independent agent by giving him a will which can originate an act opposed to God’s will. Sin is the breaking off of the creature’s will from God’s will. But God’s will cannot oppose His own will; it must therefore be the self-willed and self-originated act of the creature.”

I would highly recommend buying his book, “Predestination and Freewill and the Westminster Confession of Faith.”

You will notice, Michael defines the Will in a peculiar manner, saying, “It is not the will which decides anything; the will is only that which acts upon the behalf of one’s judgment, which is rooted in the heart, or ‘nature’… In the sense that God is unchanging, He cannot will to sin, simply because His nature will never approve of it. His will and all wills, act only within the bounds of the nature and judgment of the willful being.” Now, a Will being only able to act within the bounds of its inherent nature and judgment is one thing, but to therefore say that the Will “decides nothing” is the metaphysical error of much of Calvinistic theology. Jonathan Edwards’ treatise, “The Freedom of the Will,” is founded upon this same fundamental error.

The general problem begins with the judgment (as used by Michael) referring to Motive, and the Motive (or judgment) is being defined as the causative agent that is determining the Will. This is false; and it is equivalent to saying man’s ideas are themselves independent and causative agents which are externally acting upon and determining the Will. I would recommend, if you are interested, looking up some critiques of Edwards’ work on the nature of the Will. This system of man’s nature literally destroys the distinction between Mind and Matter. Just as a chunk of matter, such as a rock, is deterministically bound by the physical laws of the universe (physics) and is therefore amoral, being morally inculpable even if this rock were to crush a baby; so, likewise, this system of the Will is literally determined by the exact same method of cause-and-effect as Matter in the physical universe; and if we cannot righteously judge a rock for moral crimes, how shall we judge man if he is also under the same deterministic laws as a rock? While I could give some more examples for this, the following quotation from Daniel D. Whedon will be sufficient to present my point:

“it will be very difficult to find exception to the rule that all Atheists, Pantheists, Materialists, and professed Fatalists are necessitarians. From Leucippus and Democritus, through Spinoza and Hume, down to d’Holbach and Comte, the whole mass, one and all, will agree with Edwards in maintaining the absolute universal necessitation of all events, whether volitional or non-volitional. The doctrine that one principle of causation or fixed invariable sequence rules all things, material or mental, and all events of Will or of physics, is central with the d’Holbachian Atheism and Edwardean Calvinism.”

Daniel D. Whedon in his book, “Freedom of the Will: A Wesleyan Response to Jonathan Edwards,” writes, pg. 418-9,

“In the matter of Regeneration we are told by necessitarian divines that the agent is the Holy Spirit, and that his operation therein in securing the consent of the Will is always effectual and irresistible. Yet we are told by their great standard divine, John Owen [among many others, including the Westminster Confession, ch. 3, art. 1], that the Holy Spirit herein works upon our minds ‘according to their natures and natural operations.’ That is, the Holy Spirit secures the consent of the Will, in the natural and normal way, by presenting the necessitative strongest motive. This is the old mechanical freedom TO, without freedom FROM… Dr. Hodge, quoting another passage from Stapfer, interprets him as meaning that the Holy Spirit, ‘though producing conviction, offers no more violence to the mind than a demonstration of a proposition in Geometry’… That is, the Will is free, because unimpededly necessitated.”

Whedon’s book may be read online: http://books.google.com/books?id=HwtVAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false

To bear it down, if it be logically true that Regeneration precedes Faith then it must also be maintained that we are logically Saved before Faith—Titus 3:5, For God “saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” However, such a position is entirely untenable with the theme of the Gospel call, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”; and again, Romans 10:8-10, “But what saith (the righteousness which is of faith)? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” You will further notice, Confess and Believe are given in the Active Voice, meaning the subject, “you,” is the doer of them. And the act of Confession and Believing are in the Subjunctive Mood meaning their is a potential that it may or may not happen (a proper view of the Freedom of the Will, with a freedom FROM, which necessitarians deny). And lastly, to Confess and Believe are given in the Aorist Tense while “shalt be saved” is distinctly Future Tense. The great emphasis which this conveys may be seen in that “God hath raised Him” is also given in the Aorist Tense. It is for this very reason (you may have noticed) that I removed “shalt” before Confess and Believe in the KJ-translation of Rom. 10:9, so that the chronological (and logical) sequence of events would not be confused. I have never met one yet who argued that Salvation preceded Faith, and that for obvious reasons. But it is evident that if Regeneration (by which Salvation is wrought in a man) precedes Faith then we come to just such a mistaken conclusion.

Likewise, to argue that Regeneration and Faith are simultaneous, in the sense that within Regeneration is contained that Saving Faith, is to destroy the nature of man as the image bearer of God, as a Living Soul; just as the previous remarks and quotations from Whedon were espousing; for this is no different than Mormons who claim Spirit is but a very fine and purer form of Matter (Materialists). Just as it needs to be recognized that the death of Christ, though the sufficient grounds, is not the sufficient cause of our justification; for we are “justified by faith.” (Gal. 3:24; Acts 26:18; Rom. 5:1; 2 Cor. 1:24; Heb. 10:38; etc.) Therefore, righteousness “is of faith, that it might be by grace.” For this reason, while it is impossible that there should exist Saving Faith without Regeneration, it is false to say Regeneration is the cause of that Faith, as though Faith were through Regeneration; but rather, Faith is the condition by which Regeneration is wrought in the heart—”For by grace are ye saved through faith.”

The proper manner of understanding the nature of the Will is to recognize that the Will is not determinedly caused by the Motives. The Will is the causative agent of the Mind, not the Affections (wherein lies Motives) or the Intellect. Though it is true that the Will is bound within or to the limitations of the Affections and the Intellect (according to our nature) it is not governed by them, but rather is itself the Governor of them in an indirect manner. For the Affections and the Intellect are mechanical, or necessitated, in their own way by categorizing, recognizing, and reacting to the input from the sensory organs of the physical body. Edwardean Calvinists would say, therefore, the Will is also necessitated as a reaction to the Affections and Intellect, just as these are reactions to the sensory organs; thus, equating the Mind with Matter.

We say, the Will has the capacity or power to choose contrary, or otherwise, to the present and strongest Motive. This is a Libertarian (or Freedomist) doctrine of the Will (not to be confused with Libertarian theology). Which essentially means there is power to choose contrarily (a freedom TO act and a freedom FROM acting) even when the strongest Motive is sin. The pitfall in this view lies not in the doctrine itself but in the error of separating man’s limited and delegated freedom of Will from God who gives it. Thus, we come to lay out the fuller applications of Prevenient Grace, or the preparatory work of God in the unregenerate heart, whereby God enables man to receive and act upon Faith unto Salvation. In Calvinistic theology Prevenient Grace is more commonly known as Common Grace, wherein is contained Restraining and Illuminating Grace. And it is called ‘Common’ because it is universally received by all men, irrespectively. The difference is that Common Grace is often denied as having any sequential connection to Special, or Saving, Grace—but it needs to be recognized that such a denial is the very essence of Antinomianism; and indeed, this is the very heart of that philosophy which claims, in any sense, Regeneration precedes Faith.