Thus far in this series it has been shown that the old Baptist position confessed that God's decrees were in relation to "all things." It has also been shown that Dr. Gill and the founding fathers of the Hardshell denomination were supralapsarian, and believed in reprobation. It has been shown how the Conditionalist faction of the Hardshells, which represents the vast majority of the denomination today, does not hold to the "primitive" position. Many of the objections raised against the predestination of all things, by Arminians and the Conditionalist faction, have been addressed. It has been shown how the Conditionalist faction went to one extreme on the doctrine, becoming Arminian and advocates of "free will" in their understanding of God's decrees. It was also stated that the other side, the "Absoluter" faction, also went to an extreme, though in principle, they held to the truth. In this chapter the extremes of the "Absoluter" side will be addressed.
In 1894 Elder Sylvester Hassell wrote:
"Any doctrine that lessens the accountableness and blamelessness of man belittles and tarnishes the grace of God.
Now, I do not believe that there is a Primitive Baptist in the world who is a real, a full, and genuine fatalist; although our Arminian friends call us all fatalists. But I greatly regret that there is a growing tendency, among some of our people, to reduce the Bible doctrine of predestination to the pagan doctrine of fatalism."
This was said in 1894 and shows how the doctrine of predestination and the divine decrees was becoming an issue among the Hardshells. Controversy over this subject would continue to grow more intense until the early twentieth century when churches and associations began to formally divide over it. Some of the history of this controversy will be revealed in upcoming chapters in this series. But, notice that it was the late nineteenth century when the disagreement really began. Up till this time there was little objection to the doctrine of God's absolute predestination of all things. Hassell speaks of it as a "growing tendency."
Hassell states two of the points of discussion and disagreement between the two factions that were developing. The first concerned man's "accountability" or "responsibility," and the second concerned "fatalism."
Concerning the first point, as has been shown, the Hardshell founding fathers, such as Beebe and Trott, did not deny that man was responsible for his sin, disobedience, and transgression. They affirmed that man was responsible and yet God had predestined or determined all things. They believed that these two positions could be reconciled, but believed that they were not to be rejected because men could not comprehend just how they could both be true.
Regarding the charge of "fatalism," the Hardshell founding fathers rejected this as being all the same as predestination. They often spoke of God's permissive will, and how sin occurs by the voluntary acts of men. Yet, though they believed that nothing could come to pass if God had not purposefully allowed it, they did not believe that this sufferance necessitated the sin or made God the culpable author of it. Fatalism is a blind force, unrelated to intelligent being, and as such has no love for the good, being indiscriminate in the production of both good and evil. It is much like the concept of "determinism," which has both a religious context and a philosophical or non-religious context.
The concept of "determinism" is believed by atheists, their understanding of determinism being the result of their views relative to causality. There are those who believe in material determinism in physics, that all the movements of atoms is the result of prior causes. There are psychologists and sociologists who also believe in "determinism" in a strictly non-religious context. One of the basic premises of these sciences is the fact that physical and mental phenomenon can be "predicted." But, nothing can be predicted scientifically unless certain causes produce certain effects. This is a kind of "fatalism." Theological determinism, while not denying that certain causes produce certain effects, in a deterministic fashion, nevertheless sees God, the "First Cause," as having absolute foreknowledge and what will be the effects of secondary causes. Further, the scriptures show that the reason why certain causes produce certain effects is due to the divine appointment. The effects of causes is not determined by something outside of God. This area of thought connects with what is called the "Euthyphro dilemma."
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" In other words, "is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"
Are some actions right or wrong in themselves, independently of God's commands? Are moral standards independent of God? When God acts, does he conform to moral standards that exist apart from him and his will? How is God sovereign and omnipotent, and the only free and independent being, if he is subject to laws outside of himself? Those who affirm that things are right or wrong because God has willed them to be so embrace what is called "the divine command theory." God is the sole determiner of all right and wrong, just as he is the determiner as to what effects spring from causes.
Hassell continues:
"This unmoral tendency to fatalism and pantheism - to make God, and not man, the real author or cause of sin, and thus to destroy the distinction between right and wrong - appears in such unguarded and unscriptural expressions as..."
Hassell then begins a long list of perceived extremes of which he believed that the "Absoluter" side was guilty. These will be looked at and discussed, but first, let us notice that Hassell mentions another issue involving what some call "exhaustive determinism." Some reject it because they think it makes God to be the blameworthy cause or author of sin and "destroys the distinction between right and wrong." This has already been addressed in previous postings. Rightly understood and presented, the doctrine of the divine decrees should not lead to conclude that God is the author or approver of sin. Hassell mentions the use of "unguarded and unscriptural expressions," a thing the London Confession cautioned about, on the part of those who came to be known as "Absoluters."
The first "unguarded and unscriptural expression" that Hassell refers to was the "the absolute predestination of all things" when stated "without any explanatory or qualifying phrase." Hassell does not object to the expression itself, but believes it should be used in much the same way as the London Confession expresses the idea of God's "decreeing" all things. They added - "yet so as thereby God is not the author of sin..." Hassell thinks this should be the pattern to follow and that not following it was a cause of some of the "growing tensions." But, Hassell is not completely accurate nor would he follow his own advice in regard to using "unscriptural" expressions. What about the word "trinity"? Would he apply his own rule for that word as he does for the expression "absolute predestination of all things"?
Of course, as Elder Trott stated, the adding of the word "absolute" to the word "predestination" is not necessary, since the word "predestination" denotes what is absolute and certain. So, the real issue concerns whether "all things" have been "predestined," decreed, or determined. And, it has been shown from several scripture passages, that "all things" are "of God." Perhaps the Absoluters should have used other less objectionable language, such as saying - "nothing can come to pass unless God allow it." It would be saying fairly much the same thing, but would be less objectionable.
Hassell next refers to some using this expression - "God predestinates sin in the same way He does holiness."
Now that is surely an "unguarded expression" and should never have been stated by those who retained belief in the predestination of all things. Surely all things are decreed and determined, but to affirm that all things are alike purposed would be to deny the permissive will of God, and the reality of second causes. It is an expression that appears to put sin and holiness are equal footings in the mind of God.
Another "unguarded expression" that Hassell mentions is - "Sin is a creature of God, and is a very good thing in its place," and says of this expression - "nothing can be more false and blasphemous than to call sin a creature of God, when it is rebellion of the creature against the Creator, the creature's transgression of the law of the Creator."
Whether "sin" is a "creature" of God deserves some discussion. Two of the chief passages on this issue are these:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isa. 45: 7)
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Colossians 1: 15-17; See also Eph. 3: 19)
Most Christians would not accept the idea that "evil," from the Hebrew word "ra," means sin, or wickedness, though the Hebrew word is translated either "wickedness" or "wicked" 84 times in the King James Version, and even in many of those passages where "ra" is translated as "evil," it refers to moral evil.
The passage does not say that God created a certain kind of "evil," or some evil, but "evil" without limitation. Those who limit it do so based upon their own authority and not from anything in the context.
"Created" may mean to "make," or to "cause to exist," or to "bring into being." Things may be said to be created by God either directly or indirectly. Certainly the scriptures teach that God is the Creator of all men, but not in the same way he created the first man. God created Adam directly, but he creates all other men indirectly, through the medium of reproduction.
Most Christians will not affirm that God is the Creator of all things, directly or indirectly, of the evil of sin. Many theologians affirm that sin is not a "thing," but it is called a "thing" throughout scripture. Rather than deny that sin is a "thing," it seems better to understand that God creates all things, but not directly. Who can deny that sin would have no existence did God not allow or suffer it?
There is no authority for restricting "all things" to make it mean "some things." Paul's comments show that he puts no limits on "all things," saying "whether they be things in heaven or in earth," and "whether they be invisible things or visible things," and "whether they be thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers." Is moral evil not an "invisible" thing? A thing "in earth"? Is it not a "power"? Is the evil of sin not a "principality"? Consider that Satan has a "throne" (Isa. 14: 13) and there is the "throne of iniquity." (Psa. 94: 20). Is Satan not a "prince" with a "principality"?
Paul is not simply talking about material things, for he mentions dominions and powers. Paul does not exclude thoughts and actions, for he does not exclude anything. Theologians do not disagree with this, for they explain "evil" in the Isaiah passage as dealing with "calamity," which is not a material thing, but refers to events. Further, is moral evil not a calamity? Paul is saying the same thing that Solomon said: "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Prov. 16: 4)
If this issue is looked at honestly, who can deny that something can have existence independent of the will of God? Could man think a thought or perform a deed without the Lord giving him the "powers" to do such? Did not God know what would follow the giving of these "powers"?
So, strictly speaking, the statement that Hassell condemns, that sin and evil are not "creatures," is justifiable. Everything other than the Creator is a creature, owes its existence to God. However, seeing that this teaching requires delicate handling, it should not be stated that sin is a creature without explanation, as it will often leave the wrong impression. The explanation is to show how God, though he creates all things, does not create them all in the same manner, that is, directly. Some will argue that God's "permitting" a thing can in no sense be his creating or causing of a thing. But, this is not reasonable. If God's permission is absolutely necessary for the occurrence of a thing, then that thing, in some sense, owes its existence to God.
Hassell next mentions this objectionable saying of Absoluters: "God introduced sin into the world."
This is objectionable and shows that the Absoluters did not use proper care in how they explained the doctrine of the divine decrees. Had the Absoluter said - "God willingly and wisely permitted the entrance of sin," very few would object.
Hassell next mentions this objectionable saying of the Absoluters: "God prepares the evil heart as well as the good heart."
Again, this is another statement that is truly objectionable and should never have been made. Why make it? What purpose does it serve? What kind of impression does it leave with people?
Hassell says some Absoluters were saying that "God was the sole cause of Adam's partaking of the forbidden fruit," and that "God is the moving cause of sin," that "God is the sole, efficient, and responsible cause of all the wickedness in the universe." Such statements Hassell views as "most blasphemous."
Again, all these expressions are truly objectionable and not the truth. They represent an extreme. God is not the only cause of sin, but only its "First Cause." The immediate cause of sin is the will of the creature. The extreme of the Absoluter is making God the lone and culpable cause of sin, but the extreme of the Conditionalist is to affirm that God is no cause at all.
Hassell refers to Absoluters saying - "God's suffering sin is the same as His commanding sin."
Had the Absoluter said, in conformity with the London Confession, that God's permissive will is a part of his eternal decrees, there would be less objection. But, the Absoluter blurs the distinction between God's permissive will and his non-permissive will. On the other hand, Lamentations 3: 37 does use the word "command," affirming that nothing comes to pass "when the Lord commanded it not."
Hassell then mentions this statement of some Absoluters - "Sometimes the spiritually enlightened child of God hardly knows which most to admire, sin or grace."
This truly is an "unguarded expression" and represents the extremism of the Absoluter side.
Next Hassell mentions this statement of some Absoluters - "Permissive decrees are permissive nonsense." Concerning this expression Hassell says - "thus the great majority of predestinarians are fools, believing nonsense."
The denial of God's permissive will is probably the leading error of the Absoluter side.
Hassell says that the Absoluters were saying - "We are compelled to do everything we do" and that "Men are not accountable."
Again, such expressions are extremes and helped to divide and confuse. They are falsehoods that the Conditionalist side was justified in rejecting.
After giving these "unguarded expressions," Hassell wrote:
"I feel perfectly sure that no Primitive Baptist who uses such expressions really means all that they seem to imply - really means that God both prompts and compels (when the Scriptures declare that He does not even tempt - James 1.13) His creatures to sin, and then either convicts them by His Holy Spirit that the sin is altogether theirs, without repentance for which and forsaking of which they can never be received of Him in peace, or else punishes them with everlasting banishment from His holy presence; for, as I have said before, there has never been even a heathen who has been in such dense and total darkness as not to have even a natural consciousness that his sins are his own and not his Maker's."
Hassell shows forbearance with the Absoluters by believing that they really did not "really mean" what they were saying. This was more kindness than most Conditionalists would later show to them, however. At most, Absoluters were guilty of using "unguarded expressions," and made the doctrine of the divine decrees into a "hobby horse," thinking that this was their main message. Further, the Absoluters used very little discretion in their preaching on this topic to their congregations, which were composed mainly of babes and not theologians. Some of their ideas should have been left to discussion in seminaries and among learned ministers, rather than presented to congregations, who could not possibly be expected to comprehend this great mystery.
Hassell continues:
"But such extreme and unqualified expressions as those mentioned above ought never to be used, for three reasons, viz: They do not fully and accurately represent the real belief of the Primitive Baptists in regard to predestination; they are contrary to the teachings of the Scriptures, and tend to the pagan doctrine of fatalism; and, instead of glorifying, they dishonor God by staining His holiness, the most glorious attribute of His character. Because God, as a righteous Judge, most justly executes criminals who have forfeited all claims upon His mercy, the horrible thought has been uttered that, if He were to do the very same things that sinners do, it would be no sin in Him. The very supposition is blasphemy; it is impossible for God to lie, or to deny Himself (Heb. vi.18; 2 Tim. ii.13), to act contrary to His essentially, infinitely, and unchangeably holy nature."
I think this analysis by Hassell is correct and represents the error on the part of the Absoluters.
Hassell said:
"It is said in justification of this blasphemy, that He is above all law; but, though a glorious and eternal Sovereign, He is a Most Holy Sovereign who cannot do wrong, and He cannot be above the law or rule of principle of His own perfect nature or character, which is a part of Himself, and is infinite light (or truth and holiness) and love. Imbedded in the very essence of the Divine character is the eternal and unchangeable distinction between light and darkness, holiness and sin, truth and falsehood, right and wrong, purity and impurity, self-denial and selfishness, love and hatred, kindness and unkindness."
Again, this is mostly true, and is good sound advice, which, had the Absoluters heeded, a devastating division might have been avoided, and both sides kept from going to extremes.
Hassell wrote:
"It not only stains the holiness, but it also belittles the wisdom and the power of God to say that He can govern His creatures only by instigating and compelling them to sin; it represents Him as a mere Machinist, instead of an incomparable Sovereign, who perfectly foresees and perfectly controls even their own abominable wickedness to the manifestation of His glory - who can and does allow them, within predetermined bounds, to go their own sinful way, and carry out their own sinful purposes, and who is wise enough and strong enough to make even their sins, the wrath of man which worketh not the righteousness of God, redound to His praise (Psalm lxxvi.10; James i.20). This is a far truer and grander idea of God than that which makes His intelligent creatures, formed in His image, nothing but involuntary and irresponsible machines. The Scriptures are perfectly plain upon the point that men have sinful wills and ways of their own, which God suffers, and, even by such sufferance, accomplishes His own wise and holy purposes (John v.40; Isa. X.5-7, 12; liii.6-12; lv. 8; Psalm ix.16; lxxxi.11; Gen. L.20; Jer. l.17, 18; Matt. Xxii-3; xxiii.37; Luke xii.22; Acts ii.23; iv.27, 28)."
Again, Hassell offered sound advice that was sadly rejected by the Absoluter side.
Hassell said further:
"The one great cause, above all others, of the extreme and unscriptural expressions used by a few Primitive Baptists on the subject of predestination is, as I have repeatedly shown (in the Church History, pp. 650-5, 963; in The Old Paths, pp. 7-9; and in the gospel messenger of Jan. 1888, Nov. 1889, April 1892, June 1892, Sept. 1893, and Nov. 1893), the ignoring or suppression of fourteen passages of the Scriptures, which declare that God permits, or bears, or suffers, or endures, or leaves, or delivers up, or gives over men and demons to sin (2 Chron. xxxii.31; Ps. lxxxi.12; Mark i.34; v. 13; Luke iv.41; viii.32; Acts ii.23; vii.42; xiii.18; xiv.16; Rom. i.24, 26, 28; ix.22), just as though all Scripture was not given by inspiration or is not profitable for doctrine (2 Tim. iii.16). As may be seen, words of this meaning occur in the strongest texts on predestination in the Bible (Acts ii.23; Rom. ix.22). And I solemnly declare that it seems to me the height of irreverence and presumption to treat these words of the Holy Ghost as either false or unimportant, when they occur twice as often as the word "predestinate" in the Scriptures, to trample under our unhallowed feet the words of the living God, to set forth a half-truth as a whole truth, and thus to perpetually confuse and divide the churches of the saints, by expressions that are not in the Scriptures, and that, to simple, unsophisticated minds, seem to deny the holiness of God, and that have never been used in any articles of faith of any church on earth, and that are contrary to the belief of probably ninety-nine hundredths of all the predestinarians that ever lived."
Again, Hassell identifies the chief error of the Absoluters as a denial of God's permissive will.
Hassell continues:
"The phrase, "the absolute predestination of all things," is not found in any church confession of faith; but it is the substance of the first part, and only the first part, of the first sentence of the third chapter of the London Baptist Confession of Faith (Church History, p. 670); while the last part of that sentence, which is just as true and important, and which is indispensable to a statement of the entire Scriptural truth on the subject, is unwarrantedly ignored and suppressed, just as the Scriptures that teach this part of the truth are ignored and suppressed. "Yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin, nor hath fellowship with any therein, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established, in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree." The same old Baptist Confession of Faith declares that God did not compel Adam to fall, but was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit him to fall, having purpose to order it to His own glory (chap. vi, sec. 1); that He leaves men and angels to act in their sins to their just condemnation, to the praise of His glorious justice (chap. iii, sec. 3); that He leaves His own children oftentimes for a season to manifold temptations and the corruptions of their own hearts, to humble them, and make them feel more sensibly their dependance upon Him for support, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin (chap. v, sec. 5); and that He wisely and powerfully boundeth and otherwise ordereth and governeth the sins of angels and men, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice and infinite goodness and mercy (chap. v, secs. 1 and 4). Eld. G. Beebe also says that "God is holy, and reigns in righteousness, and is not the author of sin; that men act voluntarily when they commit sin, and are accountable for their sins; that God had a purpose, worthy of Himself, however inscrutable to us, in not preventing the entrance of sin into the world; that He sometimes binds and at other times looses Satan; that He restricts the wickedness of ungodly men, making the wrath of men praise Him, and restraineth the remainder of wrath of men praise Him, and restraineth the remainder of wrath; and that, by His supreme power and decree, He restricts all the rage and malice of Satan to do no more nor less than what He will overrule for the good of His people, and His own glory" (Editorials of the Signs of the Times, vol. i. pp. 30, 31, 128-130; Signs of the Times, Oct. 1, 1880)."
Notice that Hassell does not condemn the teachings of Elder Beebe and says that Beebe taught both sides of the truth as the London Confession did. Man is responsible and yet all things are in accordance with his eternal purpose and decrees.
Hassell wrote:
""Author" means originator, beginner, first mover, efficient cause; and, certainly, if God is not, the creature is the author of sin. Our most absolute brethren use the Scriptural term permission in reference to the providence of God; and the predestination of God can be no more sacred than His providence; and it is inconsistent, not only with the Scriptures, but with their own common practice in reference to providence, not to use the term permission also in reference to predestination. One of the most able and courteous of them wrote me, seven years ago, that there was no practical difference between absolute and permissive predestination - what events were just as certain under the latter as under the former (there is, of course, no difference in the actual occurrence of events; but there is, to my mind, all the difference between truth and error between God's permissive and His compulsory predestination of sin)."
The Absoluters should have been constant to teach that God is not the author of sin and that man is responsible for his sin.
Hassell continues:
"The King James version of the Bible and the London Confession of Faith use the term predestinate in reference only to the salvation of the people of God, and never in reference to sin or damnation; but the Greek word pro-orizo, translated predestinate, determine before, ordain before, is used in reference to sin in Acts iv.28, and perhaps in I Cor. ii.7; and the Greek word orizo, translated determined determinate is used in regard to sin in Luke xxii.22 and Acts ii.23. It must not be forgotten, however, that the word orizo strictly means to bound, to limit; and that the word pro-orizo strictly means to fore-bound, to fore-limit, or limit in advance, not to fore-compel, but to fore-determine the bounds of, as is shown by the same root-word in Acts xvii.26. God's connection with sin, whether by predestination or providence, is thus shown to be a connection, not of instigation, causation, or compulsion, but of sufferance, direction, restriction and overruling. Sin originates in the will of the creature, and not in the will of a Most Holy God, to whom, and to all who have His mind, or will, or Spirit, sin is utterly detestable and abominable, and not at all admirable and lovely. If an unchangeable God permits sin in time, as His word so often says He does, He certainly predestinated in eternity to permit it. Indeed, if all duration is one eternal now with God, there is no real difference between His predestination and His providence. The Scriptures often speak of God as doing what He permits to be done (see Job i.12,21; ii.6; 2 Sam. xvi.10, compared with 1 Chron. xxi.1; 1 Kings xii.11, 15; xxii 20-23; Gen. xxxvii.28, compared with xlv.5 and 1.20; Psalm xxxix.8, 9; Isa. xlii 24; Amos iii.6; Acts iv.27, 28, compared with ii.23); for He is the Creator and Upholder of the universe, and could prevent the occurrence of anything He chose. The Holy One that inhabiteth eternity is, to sin in every form and in every being, a consuming fire (Heb. x.30, 31; xii.29; Isa. vi.3, 5; lvii.15). Even His sinless Son, when He represented His sinful people, was forsaken of His holy and loving Father, and delivered up to suffer the horrible death of the cross."
"There can be no real and permanent basis for gospel union among Primitive Baptists except the Scriptures of eternal truth; and just as long as the Bible word permit continues to be ignored or suppressed by a few of our brethren, and just as long as the extreme unscriptural expressions, verging upon fatalism, that I have mentioned, continue to be used, just so long will there be strife and confusion upon the subject of predestination among those who believe alike but express themselves differently (which ought not to be - 1 Cor. i.10; iii. 3; 2 Cor. xiii.11; 1 Pet. iii.8), in regard to this matter. The responsibility for this deplorable and totally unnecessary contention and confusion must rest upon those who esteem the language of men above the language of God."
"I repeat that I do not believe that any Primitive Baptist is, in either head or heart, a real fatalist, though the expressions of some seem to imply it; and I would humbly and earnestly beseech our absolute brethren, whom I esteem as the excellent of the earth, to discontinue the use of all expressions that either assert or intimate that a Most Holy God, and not rebellious man, is the responsible cause of sin." ("The Error of Fatalism" by Sylvester Hassell, The Gospel Messenger--April 1894)
http://www.paradisepbc.org/Articles/Predestination/TheErrorofFatalismSylvesterHassell.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment