[The following is intended for a Life Group, which is to say that they are questions designed for a small group setting.]
God’s Sovereignty and Human Responsibility
~A Window into Deep Mystery~
1) When you think of something like divine sovereignty, what comes to mind? How would you describe it? How pervasive is it? Or how deep does it run?
Does it cover any of the following? And if so, can you think of examples? Health. History. Blessings. Nature. Nations. Salvation. Men’s sin. Hearts of men. Small events/details. Disasters. How long we live. Everything.
2) What you think of something like human responsibility (or human freedom), what comes to mind? How would you describe it? How important is it and why? What would be an example of coercion, or something that would negate freedom- cripple or eradicate it? In other words, at what point would we say that someone is just a puppet? What has to happen?
Can you think of passages that would be used to support the idea that men are not robots- that they do possess significant freedom, having the ability to choose one way or another?
——————–
I) Great minds have wrestled with the relationship between truths (1) and (2). How have the different camps of thought formulated the relationship? Why do they emphasize, or prioritize, or structure things the way they do? What drives them? What are their concerns?
What would be some of your concerns? And why? At what point do you fall off one side of the cliff?
II) In the Reformed tradition, have men overemphasized certain aspects of God’s sovereignty? Or can you really? Why or why not? Is the converse true?
III) Let’s zero in on a particular aspect of this discussion. Let’s compare and contrast two apparent truths and ask some questions:
A) God desires that all sinners be saved (2 Peter 3:9; 2 Timothy 2:4-6; Ezekiel 33:11; Isaiah 65:1-2; John 3:16; Matthew 23:37; Romans 2:4).
B) God has chosen some people from eternity past to be saved, and only those (the elect) will truly respond to the gospel for salvation (John 17; Eph 1:3-11; Romans 9; 2 Tim 1:8-9; 1 Cor 1; Phil 1:29; Acts 13:48).
- Can God genuinely will that all be saved (A), and yet only choose to save only some (B)?
- Doesn’t this fall into the category of contradiction? Aren’t two opposite things being affirmed at the same time? And in the same sense?
- If both (A) and (B) are true, wouldn’t it be true that God is schizophrenic or abounding in confusion?
- Does (A) mean that God cannot fulfill what He desires (at least in some respects? Or sometimes?)?
- Is there a power in the universe that is greater than God, thereby frustrating His desires? Or would it be better to say that God chooses to limit Himself when it comes to human decisions, thereby sovereignly choosing to let men ultimately decide? What’s wrong here? If anything?
- Might it be more practical to just emphasize God’s desire for all to be saved? Because if we really maintain election, isn’t it true that the gospel offer to the non-elect is disingenuous?
- How have some Reformed sought to circumvent the theological pressures of truth (A)? In other words, is there a way to interpret the passages so that the tension disappears? What say you?
IV) What is mystery? And what role might it play in this discussion? Is mystery inevitable in some areas of thought?
Is it possible to cry “Mystery!” too quickly? Is it possible to cry “Mystery!” in support of a false doctrine? How do we safeguard against both errors? How might church history help us? Or creeds? Or…?
V) What do we make of these statements:
I. “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 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.” (WCF 3.1)
I. “God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.” (WCF 5.1-
“As many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called. For God hath most earnestly and truly declared in His Word what will be acceptable to Him; namely, that all who are called, should comply with the invitation. He, moreover, seriously promises eternal life and rest to as many as shall come to Him and believe on Him. It is not the fault of the gospel nor of Christ, offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted. The fault lies in themselves, some of whom when called, regardless of their danger, reject the word of life; others, though they receive it, suffer it not to make a lasting impression on their heart; therefore, their joy, arising only from a temporary faith, soon vanishes and they fall away; while others choke the seed of the Word by perplexing cares and the pleasures of this world, and produce no fruit. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13).” (Canons of Dort, Heads 3rd and 4th, articles 8-9)
“And whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.” (Dort, Head 2, article 6)
“Conclusion
And this is the perspicuous, simple, and ingenuous declaration of the orthodox doctrine respecting the five articles which have been controverted in the Belgic churches, and the rejection of the errors with which they have for some time been troubled. This doctrine the Synod judges to be drawn from the Word of God and to be agreeable to the confessions of the Reformed churches. Whence it clearly appears that some whom such conduct by no means became, have violated all truth, equity, and charity, in wishing to persuade the public:
‘That the doctrine of the Reformed churches concerning predestination, and the points annexed to it, by its own genius and necessary tendency, leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil, and the stronghold of Satan, where he lies in wait for all; and from which he wounds multitudes, and mortally strikes through many with the darts both of despair and security; that it makes God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical, hypocritical; that it is nothing more than interpolated Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, Turcism; that it renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please; and therefore, that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes; and that if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute to their salvation; that the same doctrine teaches that God, by a mere arbitrary act of His will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation; and has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and the cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety; that many children of the faithful are torn guiltless from their mothers’ breasts and tyrannically plunged into hell; so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism, can at all profit by them’; and many other things of the same kind which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul.” (Dort, conclusion)
The Sound of Doctrine 