For a time the question of culpability in predestination was one which I had a sense of the right answer, but had a hard time articulating in coherent categories. The Romans 9 argument, “God is God. He can do whatever He wants”, is true, as far as it goes – but also profoundly unsatisfying. Why would God be glorified in blatant unfairness? I’ve been ineffective in refuting the idea that predestination is unfair (maybe occasionally teetering towards “it’s unfair and that’s ok”), so I would like to apologize to anyone to whom I may have misrepresented the answer.
That said, this passage answers the question brilliantly:
The goodness of God is so connected with his Godhead that it is not more necessary to be God than to be good; whereas the devil, by his fall, was so estranged from goodness that he can do nothing but evil.
Should anyone give utterance to the profane jeer that little praise is due to God for a goodness to which he is forced, is it not obvious to every man to reply, “It is owing not to violent impulse, but to his boundless goodness, that he cannot do evil?”
Therefore, if the free will of God in doing good is not impeded, because he necessarily must do good; if the devil, who can do nothing but evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; can it be said that man sins less voluntarily because he is under a necessity of sinning? (Institutes, 2.3.5)
Compelled behavior is not culpable.
Nature is not compulsion.
Nature is culpable.
We cannot say that God has in any meaningful sense “chosen” to be good, as if it is within the realm of possibility that God be “bad”. Goodness is his inherent nature, and nature is prior to choice. Yet he is nevertheless praised for that goodness. Should we not therefore be likewise condemned for a sinful nature, which we have likewise not chosen?
1
Joseph Sileo says: Jul 10, 2009 at 4:21If the devil’s nature is to be only capable of doing evil how does he sin voluntarily?
If God is inherently good how can he create a being capable of only evil?
Inherently Correct perhaps, but that leads back to the “it’s unfair and that’s ok” argument.
Isn’t the value of the praise given to God lessened when it is assumed that he didn’t choose to be good, but is in fact just naturally good? (ie I scored 1,000,000 points in a video game vs. I started with 1,000,000 points in a video game)
If nature is not compulsion then do humans have free will?
If there is not free will then it leads back to determinism, and therefore nature is compelled to act in a manner completely dependent on physics.
2
Samuel Justin Ferrell says: Jul 10, 2009 at 8:24The devil is not only capable of doing evil. The devil can do whatever good he chooses. God did not create an evil creature. He created a creature with choice.
3
Christopher Lee Crowell says: Jul 10, 2009 at 8:58but is it really a choice when God already knows the outcome, even before He created anything?
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
You can’t have good without evil, so it must be good to be evil sometimes.. ;)
4
thrica says: Jul 10, 2009 at 10:00Joseph: You’re reasoning towards the idea that nature is actually compulsion. Nature does not restrict our freedom, nature -is- our freedom. It is how we choose to maximize our self-interest. A good and sanctified nature will seek that in God; a sinful nature elsewhere.
Evil is not the opposite of good – Good is not -necessarily- incapable of creating evil. Even evil exists for a good purpose – highlighting the glory of God in justice and redemption (it’s not as if Lucifer made God say “Whoops, didn’t see that coming. Time for some damage control. Jesus?”).
Sam: “good” is only done with the intent of the glory of God (Isaiah 64:6), and the Devil is incapable of doing that by nature. Anyone unredeemed is utterly incapable of good. The nature is what informs his choices, and that nature is irredeemably evil (though thankfully our own is not irredeemable).
5
Samuel Justin Ferrell says: Jul 10, 2009 at 10:24My point is that Satan chose his path. He chose to be greedy. He chose to be the opposition. No one forced him into his role. He in fact created the role. But you are correct that he does no good.
6
Joseph Sileo says: Jul 10, 2009 at 15:50Is nature not the physical universe we inhabit?
Are we not as components of that system bound to its rules? (ie I want a Cheeseburger over a chicken sandwich because certain chemicals in my brain are firing in a pattern that cause a craving for a cheeseburger) Action, Reaction, Cause Effect.
So in what sense are humans culpable when they are at the mercy of their own nature, just as God is by his own nature bound to creating Evil in order to highlight good.
7
thrica says: Jul 10, 2009 at 16:15We are not at the mercy of our nature, we -are- our nature. Likewise God is not ‘bound’ by His own nature, but His nature operates freely by its character. Nothing and no one exists separately from their nature.
8
Joseph Sileo says: Jul 11, 2009 at 9:50Perhaps I should rephrase:
“God is capable only of good.” is nothing more then circular logic. This is because anything God does is good and all good is God. If God decided to kill every first born child of Egypt, he would be considered Righteous. If anybody else did they would be considered psychotic. He is the standard.
That having been said isn’t it valid to ask “Should God not be praised?” If he can only do good, then he is essentially being praised for existing.
At the same rate hell bound individuals are condemned by God for existing. It would be one thing if they had the free will to choose either their actions or to be born in this world. If your argument assumes that they do not have free will then they are just as culpable as a Train Engineer is for running over someone who jumped in front of his locomotive.
9
Joseph Sileo says: Jul 11, 2009 at 9:58The requirement of Faith also diminishes culpability. If a person was told that they would go to prison for murder, and does it anyway, then in fact they are culpable because they know beyond any reasonable doubt that their is a real world punishment for their action. Sinners lack this luxury because we don’t KNOW there is a hell, or that there is a God. Some may believe, and if that is the case by those standards they are very culpable. But everybody else is being asked (by the believers) to act based on a system of rules that might not exist in the first place.
10
Ariel R says: Jul 11, 2009 at 16:45@Joseph: Your logic only emphasizes the truth of Cameron’s point. Your comment about the firstborn children is held up out of context, when within context, it functions to show both the Egyptians and the Israelites God’s glory and to protect God’s people. That’s exactly the point: as humans, we get two pieces of the puzzle and put them together and think we’re flipping awesome (and we are all, Christian or not, guilty of that). But God is working a trillion-piece puzzle, and that’s why we praise him. His will is pleasing and perfect, perfect because God sees the whole picture, and all of the actions and reactions that will act to create good. We can’t see past our noses, and most of our actions are to save our own hineys and act according only to the present moment and our desires in the present moment.
Meaning, we see a reflection of God’s nature in ourselves and think it’s God, and therefore praise it. We are not God; we are his workers, and we can only act for good when our path is aligned with God’s, because God is the only one who can truly act for good, because he’s the only one who can see that far.
11
Ariel R says: Jul 11, 2009 at 17:03And I realized a second ago that my argument draws heavily on the subject of Cameron’s last post too, which I’m sure you read. But the subjects are intertwined, and my answer still stands.
12
Joseph Sileo says: Jul 12, 2009 at 2:18@ Ariel R. the act of killing the first born is considered justified only because it is thought to have happened. There are an infinite number of ways “God’s People” could have been saved without killing every first born child. For one he could have warned Joseph against taking them to Egypt in the first place.
As far as alignment with God’s Will is concerned, Is it appropriate to nuke Las Vegas? (See Sodom for precedent)
What does God need with workers? or a starship? (ST: The Undiscovered Country reference)
13
Joseph Sileo says: Jul 12, 2009 at 2:20Also the root question has yet to be answered. How can a being be culpable of any act when not given the free will to act? Again going back to the Train Engineer and the Suicide.
The Engineer is driving the train and a man jumps out in front is struck and killed. The Engineer is unaware that the man was planning to jump and is unable to stop in time. Should the Engineer be sent to prison for murder? Of course not.
A person is born, and acts according to nature. This course is not in alignment with God’s Will. They are unable to stop or change direction. (Lack of Free Will) Should they be sent to hell for all eternity? Of course not.
14
Ariel R says: Jul 12, 2009 at 9:17@Joseph: On the firstborns: it was part of the covenant relationship that went back to Genesis. After the Israelites turned back to God, it showed his favor for those who act according to his will. The Old Testament is different from the New Testament in the fact that we now have Christ as an intercessor for our sins, and for that reason, the Las Vegas/Sodom reference isn’t applicable.
On nature: You’re making nature and free will into synonyms, and they’re not. We act according to a nature that is inherently loathsome, but we are given the free will to reject that nature and become part of the body of Christ as his believers (1 Corinthians 12:27). We have a nature, but we also have free will to act for a higher purpose. Which makes us all the more culpable!
15
Joseph Sileo says: Jul 12, 2009 at 11:27@Ariel O RLY? We have Free will. Cameron would you like to provide your 2 cents??
As far as the covenant is concerned I still don’t see how the children had to die. I agree that the Sodom reference is not applicable, but it was the best I could come up with at the time.
The major crux is free will. It was my understanding that this note spawned from a conversation Cameron and I had a long time ago. I thought Cameron believed we didn’t have free will in the decision making sense. Am I wrong Cameron?
16
thrica says: Jul 12, 2009 at 15:38You’re missing the point. We -are- given the free will to act according to our nature. Will without nature doesn’t even make sense. What would such a will do, without beliefs as to what is good or valuable?
We do not, however, have the “free will” to reject that nature on our own – a will does not act against or outside of its nature; that is, what it sees as valuable. We cannot see God as valuable unless we have seen God in the first place – unless He has shown Himself to us. We receive a new nature then, and thus a new will, no more or less “free” with regard to its nature. It requires something external to and above ourselves to act outside of or against a nature, our original nature being totally, but not inculpably (or irredeemably), depraved.
17
Ariel R says: Jul 12, 2009 at 20:45@Cameron: I agree. And perhaps that’s what I didn’t express very well: that power to act by your will for a higher purpose is derived only through God and his own power.
18
Benjamin Rudolph says: Jul 13, 2009 at 1:41I go to a Presbyterian Church but still feel very much non-denominational. Sometimes Presbyterians are known as the “Frozen Chosen” because of their belief in predestination. I agree with you Cameron, that all of our *natures* are as you say, depraved. C.S. Lewis mentions that, “There is no neutral ground in the universe: every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counterclaimed by Satan.” (from ” ‘Christianity and Culture’, Christian Reflections”). Jesus, as Ariel states, is now our intercessor. In the Old Testament days, I believe we were very much slaves to our nature, and maybe *absolute* predestination applied more. Because then if God chose you as a “Man of God,” you could pretty much do anything. Consider what Elisha did to some kids teasing him about his baldness in 2 Kings 24: “He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.” Sheesh!
19
Benjamin Rudolph says: Jul 13, 2009 at 1:46But now, Jesus wants everyone. It doesn’t matter whether you start out preacher or drug addict, Jesus can take you where you need to be. I think the only shred of predestination that remains is the type of trials God chooses to put us through, and the varying circumstances we are born into. Some of us, just by dint of the above mentioned circumstances are by nature easier prey for Satan. An abused young boy growing up in the slums of Chicago, for example, is more likely to walk in evil ways than the son of a preacher who grew up with a good raising. Was the circumstance of this boy within his free will? Certainly not! But what is within his free will is to turn away once he is of independent age.
20
Benjamin Rudolph says: Jul 13, 2009 at 1:52Consider, as one last point, how in the Old Testament, in Kings, for example, king after king “walked in the evil ways of his father”. If that is not slavery to “nature” I’m not sure what is. In the New Testament, Christ is here to cast out all sorts of evil.
Anyway, remember that these are debatable things. Don’t get worked up over them. Get worked up over the absolutes:
1. God is omnibenevolent, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
2. Christ is God’s son.
3. We only have to ask and submit humbly, and Christ will save us!
Praise God. To Him is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever. Amen.
21
Benjamin Rudolph says: Jul 13, 2009 at 1:56And stemming from really long post #2 of mine, since we have this choice now, it makes us all the more culpable if we do not humble ourselves.
22
thrica says: Jul 13, 2009 at 2:25I think the issue is more fundamental than we like to believe. Ultimately the question is, do we choose God, or does God choose us? The answer, for a Christian, has to be the latter. The former answer will be a taint of pride on one’s entire spiritual life (Ephesians 2:8).
Predestination isn’t a matter of God choosing someone who can then do whatever he wants (Romans 6:1). God’s choosing is what causes our sanctification – it’s not separate from the justification (Romans 8:29-30). No step we make towards God can be made without God’s progressive revelation of Himself as desirable (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace ).
Nor does such a belief necessarily quench one’s fire for the gospel. You said that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent; sovereign and good. Predestination is based entirely on those two principles, and properly understood, can only serve to increase, not quench, one’s fire for the Gospel (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Hedonism ).
23
Joseph Sileo says: Jul 13, 2009 at 3:05“…It requires something external to and above ourselves to act outside of or against a nature…” – C Harwick
My point exactly. We are incapable of doing this on our own. So how can one be held accountable for walking a path of evil when they are unable to go against their nature on their own. I propose that if these things a true God is ultimately responsible since it is only him who can free us.
24
thrica says: Jul 13, 2009 at 9:19We. Are. Our. Nature. It is not separate from us. What would you resent someone for? Arrogance? Lying? Stealing a gamecube? That’s all part of their nature. We hold people accountable for it all the time – it’s why we have a court system.
25
Joseph Sileo says: Jul 13, 2009 at 19:18I am not disputing that.
“The requirement of Faith also diminishes culpability. If a person was told that they would go to prison for murder, and does it anyway, then in fact they are culpable because they know beyond any reasonable doubt that their is a real world punishment for their action. Sinners lack this luxury because we don’t KNOW there is a hell, or that there is a God. Some may believe, and if that is the case by those standards they are very culpable. But everybody else is being asked (by the believers) to act based on a system of rules that might not exist in the first place.” – Myself from 2 days ago
26
Benjamin Rudolph says: Jul 17, 2009 at 2:36In response to your post starting, “I think the issue is more fundamental…,” Cameron, of course God chooses us. Our natures are such that we do not, as a matter of fact, choose God a large amount of the time. But in general, I think “predestination” is too strict a wording for what God seems to do. As a tangent you might think about how the concept of redemption fits into all of this. There is a very real battle going on between Satan and God and Christ constantly desires to redeem us and strengthen the world of believers.
With my reference to Elisha, I know that’s not really a globally applicable reference to predestination, I just found it rather ironic :-/ The Old Testament God definitely seemed a little more wrathful, even though I know He’s the same God we know today (in a way).
But I do admire the way you articulate your points. And I enjoy discussing these things and seeing the different ways people construct their beliefs and understanding of the scripture.
27
thrica says: Jul 17, 2009 at 13:07So does God work for the salvation of everyone, or is God sovereign?
If God is sovereign, his will is not delegated or relinquished to us. And since we are utterly unable to save ourselves, predestination (I don’t believe it’s too strict a word – it’s the one used in Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1:5) is the purpose that God has for His glory in the salvation or condemnation of each person.
That is, God is not powerless to save, as if Satan, other people, even we ourselves could prevent the redeeming and sanctifying work of His grace (John 6:37-45). Irresistible and Sovereign Grace is how redemption fits into this.
(To preempt the 2 Peter 3:9 argument: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/ )
And thank you, by the way. I definitely enjoy discussing these things too; it helps me to think things through.