The doctrine of God's providence is one of the long-standing divides in Christian theology. Disagreement over the extent of God's control over human events goes back at least as far as Jesus' day, [1] and some Southern Baptists are concerned that such divisions may lead to controversy in their convention in the near future. The rise of open theism and the popularity of middle-knowledge views among certain sectors of evangelicalism have brought fresh attention to these issues. In this case, the controversy may be healthy, for providence is one of the most practical and least systematically understood doctrines in today's churches. This may drive Christians back to the Bible in search of answers to questions related to providence, as they seek a model that best fits God's dealings with humankind.
Above all things, a theological model ought to be biblical. This does not mean merely that one can muster apparent support from certain proof texts, but that the Bible honestly teaches the claims around which that model is built. It will not be possible in an article of this scope to give a thorough examination of the biblical material for every question. However, the verses cited have been selected for their explicitness and as being representative of the biblical pattern as a whole. The model presented here most closely fits the Reformed, or Calvinistic, view of providence. Its central idea is that the biblical theme of God as King, Ruler of heaven and earth, implies complete divine control as well as the moral accountability of God's subjects. Far from being fatalistic, this model encourages aggressive action for the kingdom of God, and confidence that God's work through and in us is never in vain. If there is a central text for this model, it is the confession of the converted Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4:34-35: "His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and [among] the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, 'What have you done?'" [2] Yet this model is not "merely" universal in scope, but has a personal application in the same vein as the famous hymn: "King of my life, I crown Thee now. Thine shall the glory be."
The first question to consider with regard to God's relationship to this world is, "How much does God know?" Certainly, God cannot control or be responsible for anything He is not aware of. Classic views of God attribute to Him total omniscience–certain, infallible knowledge of all things past, present, future, and possible. However, as Christians, our understanding of God must derive not from tradition but from Scripture.
The clear teaching of the Bible upholds the total omniscience of God. He is aware, for example, of everything pertaining to His creatures. "There is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do" (Heb. 4:12-13). This knowledge extends not only to actions but also to our emotions, thoughts, and will. "He knows the secrets of the heart" (Psa. 44:21). Jeremiah says that God "tries the feelings and the heart" (11:20). In Jeremiah we also read, "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds" (17:10).
Several recent theologians have puzzled over how God can know the future if it does not yet exist to be known. Speculations about the nature of time and the basis for divine foreknowledge can be complex. Yet the Bible expressly declares God's knowledge of the future. We see this, for example, in prophecies of future events. Ezekiel contains many such prophecies. Of King Zedekiah, we read, "I will bring him to Babylon in the land of the Chaldeans, yet he will not see it, though he will die there" (Ezek. 12:13). A few years later, the Babylonians captured Zedekiah, put out his eyes, and led him off to Babylon where he later died (2 Kgs. 25:7). Such a specific prediction is difficult to explain unless God foresaw that the Babylonians would take this action, and that no intervening circumstances, such as a premature death for Zedekiah, would prevent the prophecy's fulfillment. There are also prophecies that indicate God's foreknowledge even of human hearts: "Then those of you who escape will remember Me among the nations to which they will be carried captive, how I have been hurt by their adulterous hearts which have turned away from Me...and they will loathe themselves in their own sight for the evils which they have committed, for all their abominations" (Ezek. 6:9).
The certainty with which these prophecies are pronounced, and their abundance in Scripture, are especially significant in light of the weight the prophets place on them. The accurate fulfillment of these prophecies is the test of a legitimate prophet: "The prophet who prophesies of peace, when the word of the prophet comes to pass, then that prophet will be known as one whom the LORD has truly sent" (Jer. 28:9; see also Zech. 4:9). The converse is also true: "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not fear him" (Deut. 18:22). The implication for God's foreknowledge is clear: If inaccurate predictions cannot come from God, then whatever God says about the future must be true. God even makes foreknowledge a test of deity itself. In His challenge to idolaters to demonstrate the power of their idols, He begins, "Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place" (Isa. 41:22).
What is the basis for God's omniscience? The Bible does not give an explicit answer to this question, but various texts relate His knowledge to at least two of His other attributes. The first is omnipresence. Psalm 139:1-6 is one of the most remarkable testimonies to God's omniscience. The psalmist then proceeds to show that God is everywhere. Statements of God's presence and His knowledge are carefully interwoven. Verse 16 then shows a second basis for God's knowledge: "Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained [for me], when as yet there was not one of them." Commentators disagree as to whether the reference to "days" refers only to the length of the psalmist's life or to all the events those days contain. In the context of the psalm, the latter is more likely– especially considering the following verses about the vastness of God's thoughts. But in either case, determining the exact length of a person's life requires at least an exhaustive knowledge of what events will transpire that could affect that person's longevity. Everything from wars to encounters with criminals to a daily diet would have to be taken into consideration.
Isaiah 46:9-10 is another key passage that connects God's foreknowledge with foreordination. When He "declares the end from the beginning," it is not merely a prediction, for He says, "My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure." On the basis of these and many other passages, a biblical model of providence should ascribe to God complete knowledge of all things and account for the material that relates foreknowledge to His eternal plans and purposes.
One other question regarding God's knowledge is the question of "middle knowledge," His awareness of what people would do in particular circumstances (including those that will not actually occur). Some theologians shrink from the divine knowledge of possibilities, either because this gives God too much ability to arrange what choices we will make, or else because it is difficult to conceive of God imagining or contemplating things He knows will not happen. Nevertheless, the Bible contains several indications that God has certain knowledge of what people would do in different situations.
The most famous example is Matthew 11:21-24, in which Jesus says that Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom would have repented if they had experienced the miracles of Jesus' ministry. Similarly, God says to Jeremiah concerning the false prophets, "If they had stood in My council, then they would have announced My words to My people, and would have turned them back from their evil way and from the evil of their deeds" (Jer. 23:22). One enlightening text is Exodus 13:17, in which "God did not lead [the Israelites] by the way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near; for God said, 'The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.'" Here, God's knowledge of possibilities is given as the basis for one of His decisions. A New Testament example comes from Paul, who says that if "the rulers of this age" had understood the predestined wisdom of God, "they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor. 2:8).
Even before considering the power of God and the extent of His decrees, we can say that His knowledge affords Him extraordinary control over events. What plans God makes, He makes knowing whether or not they would succeed. Thus, any model of providence that grants God total omniscience should grant that anything God truly intends or purposes to do will be accomplished. (This is a logical truism; one cannot genuinely "intend" to do what one knows one will not do.) The fact that He knows the conditions under which people would repent also has important implications for God's relationship to human salvation.
Beyond simple knowledge, to what extent does God determine the outcome of events? The biblical authors never hold back in their ascription of all sorts of events to God's power. He determined where and when the nations would arise (Acts 17:26). He ordained the persecution of His people (1 Thes. 3:3). Phrases such as "from long ago" and "from all eternity" mark statements that God predestined the fall of enemy nations (Isa. 22:11; 25:1), the conquests of the Assyrians (Isa. 37:26), the blessings of the righteous (2 Tim. 1:9), and the punishment of false teachers (2 Pet. 2:3).
So God accomplishes specific plans laid out far in advance, even eternally. But does this include all things? Many confessions of God's power leave no room for exceptions. Hannah's song declares, "The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. The LORD makes poor and rich; He brings low, He also exalts" (1 Sam. 2:6-7). Likewise, God says of Himself, "I am the LORD and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these" (Isa. 45:6-7). These expressions by implication include everything between the two extremes. If God is sovereign over life and death, light and darkness, good and evil, what more is there? Even the smallest details often attributed to chance fall under God's activity, as the Proverbs indicate, "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD" (Prov. 16:33). Considering texts such as these, we can be confident in giving full weight to the statement in Ephesians 1:11 that God "works all things after the counsel of His will."
The Bible also affirms that these purposes of God are inviolable. For example, Job declares, "He is unique and who can turn Him? And [what] His soul desires, that He does" (Job 23:13-14). The Lord's appearance to Job only reinforces that confession: "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). When Psalm 119:89 says, "Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven," the following lines clarify that word refers to His established decrees, "for all things are Your servants." Twice Jeremiah promises that "the anger of the LORD will not turn back until He has performed and carried out the purposes of His heart" (Jer. 23:20; 30:24). God demonstrates His mercy with equal determination: "Heal me, O LORD, and I will be healed; save me and I will be saved, for You are my praise" (Jer. 18:14).
What of passages that suggest that God changes His mind? The difficulty in dealing with these passages is understandable. For example, Samuel declares that "the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent" (1 Sam. 15:29), but just six verses later we read, "the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel" (15:36, KJV). One thing is certain: verses that indicate repenting (or relenting or regretting) do not necessarily indicate failure of God's purposes. God's plans did not fail; He had succeeded in making Saul king. God had not expected or intended that Saul's family be the ruling dynasty for His people. He had already prophesied through Jacob that the ruler would come from Judah (Gen. 49:10), yet Saul was a Benjamite. What the "relenting" verses illustrate is a change in God's actions resulting from God's sorrowful disposition toward events that displease Him–despite the express fact that He brought them about.
If anything about God's rule is simple to understand, it should be His rule over the forces of nature. There are no issues of freedom or moral responsibility to deal with, as there are with God's role in human affairs. Nevertheless, it is the apparent lack of freedom in nature that presents difficulty in some minds. We easily recognize God's power to do miracles that "break" the laws of nature on occasion. The virgin birth of Christ (who as a male had a Y chromosome which otherwise comes from the father), Elijah's floating axe head, and the future resurrection of the dead are all beyond any purely natural explanation. However, miracles that are definitively of this sort are rare even in Scripture, with nearly all of them occurring during the ministries of Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, and Jesus and the apostles.
Yet aside from miracles, the laws of nature appear to be inflexible. But Scripture glorifies God for many non-miraculous events in nature. Jeremiah 14:22 says, "Are there any among the idols of the nations who give rain? Or can the heavens grant showers? Is it not You, O LORD our God? Therefore we hope in You, for You are the one who has done all these things." Ascriptions such as these go beyond the notion that God set the natural laws in motion. Particular natural events occur in response to prayer (James 5:17), by Jesus' command (Mark 4:39), and to deliver God's people (Acts 16:26), as well as to punish (Num. 21).
The concept of physical laws as such is a modern one, though people in biblical times recognized a consistency within nature (Gen. 8:22). It is in Christ that all things hold together (Col. 1:17), and so we would say that God maintains the regular operation of nature. As a God of order, He sustains these patterns and processes so that they are consistent while at the same time accomplishing all His complex and detailed purposes. We also confess that God is not subject to these patterns we call physical "laws," and He may exert His force upon nature in a different manner than usual. Yet the pattern of Scripture indicates that He does so not from lack of foresight or because natural means would be insufficient, but in order to display His power and give His endorsement to His ministers. This is evident from the biblical words used to identify miracles (dunamis, power, and sémeion, sign), and from explicit statements such as John 9:3, Acts 2:22, and 2 Corinthians 12:12.
Perhaps the most difficult issue with regard to divine providence is how God's control of human affairs relates to the perceived freedom with which we make our choices. If we accept at face value the statements that God's purposes for us are already settled, how do we account for the perception that we are presented with a number of options whenever we make decisions?
This is a case where the temptation is great to fit biblical teaching into the mold of subjective personal experience. The biblical authors do not appear concerned to safeguard the concept of "free will" from encroachment by God's power. [3] In fact, the pattern we see is the opposite. Jeremiah 10:23 makes the bold declaration, "I know, O LORD, that a man's way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps." Proverbs 16:9 likewise states, "The mind of man plans his way, but the LORD directs His steps." Even people opposed to God's actions become tools for His use, so that Nebuchadnezzar is called "My servant" in Jeremiah 25:9, and the Assyrians are likened to instruments such as axes, saws, and clubs in Isaiah 10.
Throughout the Bible, God has the ability to change the human will so as to bring about a certain outcome. Speaking again of Nebuchadnezzar, God says, "I will also show you compassion, so that he will have compassion on you and restore you to your own soil" (Jer. 42:12). God promises to cause an evil man to become compassionate; it seems Nebuchadnezzar is not left with the genuine option of doing otherwise. In the same manner, Paul says to the Thessalonians, "We also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it..." (2 Thes. 2:13). Why should the thanks go to God and not to the church for their acceptance of God's word? Evidently because He is the ultimate source of their acceptance. The early Christians declared, "For truly in this city were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur" (Acts 4:27-28). The implication here is that God had complete freedom of movement to direct the choices of these people as He saw fit. God's direction of human choices is also evident from passages such as Genesis 45:4-9, in which Joseph gives God credit for sending him to Egypt although it was his brothers who sold him into slavery.
The difficulty with this compatibilistic understanding of the will lies not in understanding it so much as in accepting it. In today's America, self-determination is a supreme societal value. The ability to do as one pleases, and to "please" as one pleases, is central to many people's understanding of personhood. Nearly every model of providence outside the Reformed tradition accepts libertarian freedom as a basic premise. Process theology extends this concept of freedom even to inanimate "entities." It seems that something in our very nature as humans resists the idea of being controlled by a higher power. This is not to say that non-Calvinists are consciously rejecting God's work in their lives, or that rebelliousness is their primary motive. Yet the Bible simply does not bother to qualify its statements so as to allow room for people to thwart God's will. This desire for a sort of human sovereignty is not something our theological models ought to promote. It seems wiser to accept the biblical picture and interpret our reasoning and experience according to its standard, than to let our preconceptions dictate what the Bible is allowed to say.
If God is ultimately behind our choices, the question naturally arises, "Why does He still find fault, for who resists His will?" (Rom. 9:29). One answer, the one given by Paul in Romans, is that it is not for us to question God. However, if we are asking this question out of an honest desire for truth and understanding, rather than seeking an excuse for our behavior, we desire something more. The solution may have to do with motive. There is in the Bible a connection between God's knowledge of the heart and His judgment of human actions (Psa. 7:9; Jer. 11:20; 17:10; Heb. 4:12-13). God "weighs the heart" (Prov. 21:2; 24:12). Jesus says in Mark 7:20-23 that it is from the heart that evil deeds arise. However much God directs our choices, we still decide with intentionality and a particular purpose. Whenever we sin, that purpose is evil, and we are rightly judged for it. A comparison has been made with police "sting operations": If the police manipulate a person to commit a crime against his will, this is entrapment and the person is not accountable. But if the situation leads the person to commit the same crime with full knowledge and criminal intent, he is doing what he wants to do. Or to be precise, he wants to do it more than he wants not to do it, and acts accordingly. He is responsible for his crime.
Motive is also the reason why God is not culpable for the sins that occur. If we accept that God is good (which is amply attested in the Bible), we would say that any allowance of evil has a morally justifiable cause. The story of Joseph is a good example: God arranged that Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery to Egypt. Recall that their initial intent was to kill Joseph (Gen. 37:20). But Joseph's slavery did more than save his own life. God blessed him even during his thirteen years of suffering and used him to prepare Egypt for a famine, saving thousands of lives. The famine itself served to bring Jacob's family to Egypt, setting the stage for the most tremendous display of God's redemptive power in the early Old Testament. In the meantime, the sins of the Canaanites would reach the point where God would be justified to eradicate them upon giving the Israelites the promised land (Gen. 15:15). The claim that suffering and evil are gratuitous (i.e., that they serve no divine purpose) is without biblical warrant, for the Bible often reveals the accomplishment of God's purposes through suffering on large and small scales. Other reasons we may say God is not blameworthy for sins include His ownership of all things, the state of all people as sinful and deserving of punishment, and the absence of any being or external standard by which God would be held accountable.
If God uses evil for good, then why do we resist evil? Why does it displease God? In short, what makes evil evil? The Bible declares that sin is detestable to God. By His nature He opposes what is out of accord with His holiness, because He is just. He grieves at human suffering because He is compassionate. In Luke's Beatitudes and many other passages, God assures those who suffer that all will be made right when His kingdom comes. For His own purposes, God has allowed evil and imbalance to be part of the world for a time, so that when all things are brought in line with His desires, it will be a true restoration and not simply a continuous perfection. It may be that the world, such as it is, brings more glory to God and to all His attributes than any other world, including a world without evil. In any case, the Bible contains books such as Job that both show God behind the occurrence of unjust suffering and also demonstrate God's faithfulness to His people.
So far we have spoken of God as equally in control of good and evil (as Isa. 45:6-7). But we have also used words such as allow and permit when speaking of God's relationship to sin. There must be what Reformed thinkers have called an "asymmetry" in God's relationship to good and evil. God causes us to do good, for the purpose of good, and so His goodness is preserved regardless of how directly we link Him with good actions. However, when God brings about evil, it is also for the purpose of good, and God is not tainted by the evil motives of the person who chooses to commit the sin. The concept of permissiveness is a simple and biblical way to communicate this asymmetry, as we see in Acts 14:16: "In the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways." Likewise, God's command to the lying spirit, "Go and do so," is also understood in a permissive sense (1 Kgs. 22:22).
Unfortunately, the word permission can sometimes mean nothing more than toleration: God lets people do as they please, without interfering. Arminians speak of permission in this sense, explaining that evil occurs as a general result of God's creation of (libertarianly) free creatures. God's only recourse to prevent any particular evil would be to override that free will, which Arminians believe God does not do. However, we have already seen the biblical testimony that God is omniscient and therefore anticipates and even foreknows what evils will be committed. He often could, if He so desired, prevent the evil without directly interfering with the would-be sinner's choices. Furthermore, there are clear cases in the Bible of God working through choices and turning hearts. If it is not outside of God's character to do this, then God should be able to prevent any evil act if He so desired. From this we conclude that God's permission takes place with full knowledge of what He permits and full ability to prevent it. This deliberative concept of permission may place God too close to evil for some people's comfort, but it is in accord with the biblical testimony of God's rule, and it still acknowledges that no evil arises from God or taints His purposes. God is not the author of evil, for what makes an act evil lies in the heart of the person committing the sin.
God's dominion over all things has particular application to salvation. How is it that people become children of God? What distinguishes those who are ultimately forgiven from those who are ultimately punished for their sins? The Bible in many places speaks of God's people as elect, or chosen (e.g., John 13:18; 15:19; Col. 3:12; 2 Thes. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:10; Titus 1:1). Paul says of righteousness, "those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened" (Rom. 11:7). This choosing took place "before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4-5). Frequently in the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks of those whom the Father has given to Him. He says, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (John 6:37), and "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day" (John 6:39). Jesus' sheep are those whom the Father "has given to Me" (John 10:29). All whom the Father has given to Jesus receive eternal life (John 17:2). He prayed, "I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me" (John 17:9).
It is necessary to clarify that the "elect" are not an elite class of people that are somehow morally or spiritually superior to everyone else. They are not chosen on the basis of anything good in themselves. Paul says, "Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (Eph. 2:3). Again, he says in Titus, "For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy" (Titus 3:3-5). God elects and saves sinners who are no more worthy of salvation than those whom He does not elect and save.
Arminians often respond that the relationship between election and foreknowledge demonstrates that God does elect on the basis of something He foresees within us. The scriptures they cite are 1 Peter 1:2, in which believers are "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," and Romans 8:29, "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined...." What is it that God could see in us as a basis for election? The usual response is faith, through which we are saved according to Ephesians 2:8-10 and many other verses.
The Arminian understanding of election based on foreseen faith is refuted on two fronts. First, the meaning of foreknowledge in Scripture is determinative rather than simply based on foresight. As we have seen in Isaiah 46:9-10, the concepts of foreknowledge and foreordination are connected. This connection also appears in Acts 2:23, in which Jesus was "delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God." Foreknowledge also appears to have a relational aspect, as with Christ, who was "foreknown before the foundation of the world" (1 Pet. 1:20), and Israel, of whom Paul says, "God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew" (Rom. 11:2). Secondly, even if God did foresee something good within particular people, how did it get there? Who makes one person different from another? If the ultimate difference between those who are saved and those who are lost is an innate decision or act of faith that is not attributable to God, then it seems that believers have a cause for boasting, despite Ephesians 2:8-10. But if the faith that God foresees comes from God Himself, then His selection of particular people would logically come before this granting of faith to those people, not afterward or in response to it.
One difficulty with the Reformed understanding on this point is how foreknowledge is distinct from election and predestination, if all three have to do with foreordination. From the verses above, the biblical order appears to be that God "elects according to foreknowledge," freely and unconditionally choosing His people on the sole basis of His compassionate desire to establish a relationship with them. He then predestines them to the specific elements of salvation: adoption as sons, conformity to Christ's image, obtaining their inheritance, etc. The means by which those ends are brought about would logically follow. All this is within the scope of God's plan of redemption, which according to Romans 8 goes beyond the salvation of individual humans to the restoration of all things. Of course, if we regard these as eternal decrees, this is to be understood as a logical order rather than a temporal one.
Where does the Fall, the origin of evil, fit into these decrees? Traditionally, among Reformed theologians there are two positions. The first, which is given the unnecessarily esoteric name supralapsarianism, regards the Fall as a means to redemption. God decreed to glorify Himself in salvation and therefore decreed to permit the Fall as a means of accomplishing that end. This has the advantage of explaining why God permitted evil to arise in the first place, and tends to view all suffering in a redemptive light. The alternative view, called sublapsarian or infralapsarian, claims that God permitted the Fall for reasons unknown, and made His redemptive decrees in response to the Fall. The advantage here is that in this scheme, God looks upon the elect and non-elect in their sinful condition, their fallenness already having been decreed. Scripture consistently presents salvation as an act of grace and compassion, which is not as clear in the supralapsarian view. However, the former view's explanation for the Fall is appealing (though not specifically drawn from Scripture). It may be helpful to observe here that (1) the positive aspects of each view are not necessarily mutually exclusive–God could still mercifully save sinners and permit their fall as a means to their redemption–and (2) the Bible does not see it necessary to establish the logical order of God's thought processes. The order of the decrees has more to do with speculation than with constructing a biblical model of providence.
The election of God's people from eternity does not mean that they are born devoted to Him. Just as there was a point in history at which Jesus died and rose, securing their redemption, there remains a point in each one's life when that person is freed from slavery to sin and becomes a follower of Christ. The Bible associates this conversion with faith and repentance. Saving faith may be defined as agreement with God concerning His testimony about sin, salvation, and Christ, manifesting itself as a deliberate and conscious trust in Jesus Christ both as Savior for forgiveness and as Lord for the guidance and direction of one's life. Saving faith always produces repentance, whereby the sinner hates and turns from his sins to God to pursue obedience to Him.
How is it that a sinner, dead in trespasses and sins, would do this? As Paul says in Romans 8:7-8, "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able [to do so], and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Paul says this having demonstrated in the prior chapter that even with a desire to please the law, those who are in bondage to sin cannot break free of its power. Jeremiah 13:23 confirms the impossibility of repentance by one's own power: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil." Jesus provides the answer: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again'" (John 3:6-7). John applies this principle to belief as well as to lawful behavior: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (1 John 5:1, ESV). Rebirth by the Holy Spirit is the means by which God moves a person from spiritual death to life. In the Reformed tradition, the preferred term is regeneration, taken from Titus 3:5.
This change affected by the Holy Spirit is also portrayed as a new or opened heart. In Acts 16:14, "the Lord opened [Lydia's] heart to respond" to Paul's gospel. In Ezekiel 11:19-20 we read, "And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God." We also see this promise: "I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD, and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart" (Jer. 24:7). By heart, of course, God is not speaking of a bodily organ but of the disposition of the will. Before, the heart was inclined toward evil, and it is now the natural response of the heart to respond favorably to God. Thus, while faith and repentance are deliberate human acts, they are rightly regarded as gifts granted by God, as described in Acts 5:31; 11:18; Philippians 1:29; and 2 Timothy 2:25.
Where does this leave the non-elect? We know from Acts 17:30 that "God is now declaring to men that all [people] everywhere should repent." The Scripture is full of calls to come to Christ, and that none will be turned away. All who would leave everything to follow Christ, who would believe and repent, have salvation as their reward. There are even indications from Luke 7:30 and Acts 7:51 that the lost resist the work of the Holy Spirit which, according to John 16:8, is at work convicting the world "concerning sin and righteousness and judgment." The invitation has been made, and God has made the case plain enough that all are without excuse (Rom. 1:18-21). As illustrated in the history of Israel, God has given every opportunity for reconciliation, far beyond any obligation of His, as if He were obliged to save at all. But their refusal to obey and embrace Christ is their own decision, made in rebellion against God. The only reason they do not accept Christ's offer is because they do not want peace on His terms.
An analogy may be helpful here. Norman Geisler has compared the Calvinist view of salvation to a farmer who discovers three boys drowning in his swimming hole, crying out for help. Since a posted sign forbids swimming, they deserve the consequences for their actions, so the farmer graciously saves one and lets the other two drown. James White suggests a modification of the analogy to make a more meaningful comparison. Consider a king, the wisest, noblest, and most compassionate of them all, who finds some criminals raping and murdering his friends. They have foolishly but deliberately set fire to his castle and are about to burn inside it. He calls for them to follow him out the emergency exit, but they prefer the flames, cursing the king and throwing ashes into his face. Returning to the pond analogy, White (quoting Samuel Storms) describes the father sending his son into the pond, knowing the son will die while trying to rescue one of the boys, who kills the son in his attempts to resist rescue. The saved boy, once on dry land, is immediately grateful to the farmer, while "the two who remain in the water continue hurling their taunts at the farmer, declaring that even if they could start anew, they would dive defiantly into the middle of the pond without a moment's hesitation." [4] A proper appreciation of the sinfulness of mankind quickly rids us of the notion that the non-elect (or the elect, for that matter) somehow deserve salvation. God does not place any evil in them, nor does He withhold anything He is obligated to give. His grace in conversion is His to do with as He pleases.
The Holy Spirit's work does not stop with conversion. Even a regenerated heart continues to struggle with sin. "The flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please" (Gal. 5:17). Nevertheless, "our inner man is renewed day by day" (2 Cor. 4:16). This gradual renewal is one of the mind (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:23). Like conversion, this sanctification is accomplished by the Holy Spirit, "for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for [His] good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13). Yet also like conversion, it is effortful. The Bible commands believers to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:13), and "applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in [your] moral excellence, knowledge, and in [your] knowledge, self-control, and in [your] self-control, perseverance, and in [your] perseverance, godliness, and in [your] godliness, brotherly kindness, and in [your] brotherly kindness, love" (2 Peter. 1:5-7). Qualities such as these are produced by the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) but are part of a disciplined life. This sort of duality of causation is not difficult to grasp if one accepts a compatibilistic view of free will.
Progress in sanctification, manifested in these character qualities, gives observable evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit in one's life, and this is the best basis for assurance that one is truly saved and therefore elect. This is why Peter says to "be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall" (2 Pet. 1:10, ESV). There are many who profess or appear to be believers, but these eventually abandon the faith and prove their faith false. As John says, "they went out from us, but they were not [really] of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but [they went out] so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). Warnings such as these are generally followed in Scripture with assurances for the faithful, as in Hebrews 6: "We desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises" (v. 11-12), and, "This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a [hope] both sure and steadfast" (v. 19). Nevertheless, Paul's warning is instructive: "Test yourselves [to see] if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you fail the test?" (2 Cor. 13:5).
Sanctification is never complete in this life. Even Paul clarified, "not that I have already obtained [it] or have already become perfect" (Phil. 3:12). What Solomon said in 1 Kings 8:46 remains true: "There is no man who does not sin." Our hope is that when Christ returns, "we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is" (1 John 3:2). At that time we will be glorified, and all our sinful tendencies will be removed. Our hope and desire for this has a purifying effect of its own (1 John 3:3), and as Jesus promised, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness in its totality (note the accusative case in Matthew 5:6) will be satisfied.
The first practical application of this model of providence is our Christian service. One of the most common objections to any model of providence that places God in full control, is that our actions therefore do not matter. Why pray if we cannot change God's mind, or why witness if the elect will be saved anyway? Why be holy if our salvation is secure? Why do anything if it does not depend on us? Reformed thinkers since John Calvin have answered these questions, yet the charges persist to this day–despite centuries of evidence that Reformed Christians are as evangelistic and disciplined as those outside the Reformed tradition. It may well be that in our sinful state, we may become complacent knowing that God's purposes will be accomplished. But this is a distortion of the Reformed model, and it recalls the false teachers who "turn the grace of our God into licentiousness" (Jude 4) and "turn freedom into an opportunity for the flesh" (Gal. 5:13).
With regard to the call to evangelism and missions, it is clear first of all that God commands the spread of the gospel (Matt. 28:19-20). Second, it is not true that the elect will be saved even if we do not share. Romans 10:8-17 makes it clear that faith comes by hearing the preached word of the gospel. This is the only means God has ordained for the salvation of souls. Only those who hear believe, only those who believe are saved, and only those who are saved go to heaven. We know that those who do are also elected eternally by God and redeemed by Christ's death on the cross, and we thank God that no one falls out somewhere during the process. But we are part of that process. This leads to a third reason to evangelize: Is it not an honor to be part of this great work? God could easily arrange millions of "Damascus road" experiences to save people. But "God was well pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21). It is only because of God's converting power and the inviolability of His purposes that our feeble efforts make an eternal difference. If anything, this should drive Calvinists to be especially courageous and aggressive in proclaiming the gospel, and indeed the whole counsel of God.
The same principles apply to prayer. It is a means ordained by God to accomplish His purposes. A Reformed model of providence does not deny that God is responsive. It simply sees both the request and the response as being part of God's plan from eternity. We pray with confidence knowing that, if our desires are properly aligned with God's, the prayer itself is part of God's providing the answer. One of God's promises is that He will provide whatever is necessary for us to do His will, but He still wants us to ask (Matt. 21:22; Mark 11:24; Luke 11:9; John 14:13-14; 1 John 5:14-15).
There is a segment of the church today that preaches that we ought not submit our requests to God's will. Rod Parsley and other teachers have cited 1 Samuel 8, in which the Israelites demand a king and God grants it, even though this is not His desire. They seek to show that we can have our requests in prayer even if it is not God's will. The problem with this view is clear from the very example they cite: Asking God for something outside His will can lead to disaster. And so we pray humbly, knowing that if our desires are not aligned with His, God's way is better and so we would not want requests outside His will to be granted anyway.
A second practical application for this model of providence has to do with our day-to-day decisions. We often look for "God's will" as we seek guidance in particular situations. Questions as to whom to marry, what school to attend, and whether to leave one church ministry for another are often not solved through the use of Scripture alone. Too often, we ask these questions with the thought that there is a wonderful future called "God's will" that awaits us if we make the right decision (even in morally neutral situations). But the wrong choice will somehow set us off track so that we have to settle for something short of our destiny. We therefore make knowledge of the future a prerequisite for our decisions, and seek some internal impression or "word" from a wise Christian as to what God's plans are. Ministers who approach individual believers with the words, "God laid on my heart to tell you this" only serve to reinforce this practice.
Experience allows us to anticipate some of the consequences of our actions, but God's plans and purposes are hidden. What we do have to go on are God's biblical instructions to make our decisions in wisdom and righteousness. The applications of biblical principles are myriad, and it is on this basis that we should seek guidance. This is not to deny that the Spirit can give impressions and "nudges" toward particular decisions. This may be part of God's compatibilistic hand, causing certain choices to rise to the top of our list of desires. However, the Bible gives the clear, authoritative principles by which Christians can live their lives. And God's hold on the future assures us that well-intended mistakes will not set us off track or prevent God's will from being done in our lives.
For a concise statement of my beliefs about providence, see my Declaration of Faith.
