# Do I have providence all confused?



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Sep 20, 2005)

I´m critiquing tozers´ writings on God´s sovereignty for this paper and I confuse even myself. 

Here is what I said: 

"Secondly concerning the doctrines of grace Tozer seems to contradicts himself. He opens the chapter passionately claiming "œ were there even one datum of knowledge, however small, unknown to God, His rule would break down at that point, and later claims "œOur choice is our own, but the consequences of the choice have already been determined by the sovereign will of God." But is God dependent on the choice before He can determine the consequence? If that is so then that choice becomes that one datum of knowledge unknown to God. Also God is dependent on man before He can act and not totally free."

Secondly, I don't really understand this part of the WCF

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly;[8] yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.[9]

What do they mean about First Cause and second causes?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 20, 2005)

First cause would be God's decree. The second cause would be man's choices or other circumstances that affect what men choose to do (such as a depraved heart).


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> But is God dependent on the choice before He can determine the consequence? If that is so then that choice becomes that one datum of knowledge unknown to God. Also God is dependent on man before He can act and not totally free.



While I of course agree with you that Tozer's views here can and should be crutiqued, I don't think your last two sentences here do so in way that is being completely fair and accurate to his (and other Arminians') views. In particular, Arminians' view that God is dependant on the choice of man in particular situations does not automatically make them Open Theists, for they agree with us that He _knew_ every datum from eternity past, even though they deny that He sovereignly _caused_ every such datum. Likewise, their take on providence does not _necessarily_ take away God's "freedom" (depending on the sense in which that term is being used), for they believe He _voluntarily_ makes events and outcomes dependant upon man's choice. In other words, they believe that God is both able and free to sovereignly guide the outcome of every event, but that He chooses not to do so.

*So instead of critiquing Tozer by attempting to liken his view with Open Theism or with a denial of God's freedom, I would attack the very heart of his assumption that God is in fact choosing to let man be the ultimate determiner of his own actions and their outcomes.*

For instance, in Genesis 20:6, "Then God said to him in the dream, 'Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.'" That goes against the heart of the Arminian belief that God's decree is no more than a foreknowledge of what He sees we will simply do on our own with the freedom He chooses to grant us.

Likewise, in Romans 11:5-6, we are told, "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it [the choosing] is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." As I tried to indicate by the words in brackets, this passage is not talking about how _salvation_ is by grace, but is talking about the identity of God's people. So what does it say is by grace? The _choosing_ (hence the "chosen by grace"). Scriptures like that undermine the Arminian notion that God's decrees are based upon what He passively foresees we will do.



> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> Secondly, I don't really understand this part of the WCF
> 
> II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly;[8] yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.[9]
> ...



They are simply saying that the ultimate, root reason all things come to pass is because God sovereignly decreed them, and thus they refer to that decree as the "first cause" of all things. But of course Calvinists do not for a second deny that God uses _means_ to bring about His decrees, and the divines are simply calling those "second causes." In other words, the first cause for Christ's death was God decreeing it, and the second cause for Christ's death was Him being beaten and nailed to a cross.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 20, 2005)

Good thoughts, Chris.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Likewise, their take on providence does not _necessarily_ take away God's "freedom" (depending on the sense in which that term is being used), for they believe He _voluntarily_ makes events and outcomes dependant upon man's choice. In other words, they believe that God is both able and free to sovereignly guide the outcome of every event, but that He chooses not to do so.



But if He choose not to sovereignly guide the outcome of every event, then He is giving up His sovereignty. He becomes co-sovereign with man and still is dependent on their actions before He can act.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Indeed - and that is why I did say it depends on the sense in which the word "freedom" is being used. In the Arminian scheme, is God still free to do _whatever_ He pleases, including an effectual guiding of every person and event if He so chooses? Yes. So _in that sense_ it would be a strawman to say that Arminians deny God's freedom. Yet I agree with you that they deny His full freedom in the sense that they believe Him to voluntarily surrender a part of it that Scripture teaches He does not surrender - and that is why I would critique a theologian like Tozer by showing from Scripture (such as my brief examples above) how God does _not_ in fact surrender that freedom, in the process of salvation or the rest of life, but fully exercises it in every aspect. That approach would directly and clearly demonstrate the invalidity of their claims about God's biblical freedom, rather than starting back-and-forth debates over the philosophical meaning of words (e.g. "freedom") that may leave people thinking you misunderstand their view and would lack the power that a direct Scriptural analysis would have.


----------



## Scott (Sep 22, 2005)

A few thoughts. The WCF affirms that men, like God, have a sort of freedom that is not absolutely determine by nature. WCF 9.1: "God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil."

In a way consistent with this freedom God plans out and superintends over ever aspect of reality, including the actions of men. This superintending work does not offend the natural liberty of man. He makes real choices. In its typical precision, WCF 3.1 summarizes like this: "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

Note that whatever mysterious mechanism God uses does not "offer violence to the will of the creatures." 

Arminians and others typically try and maintain people are free from God's eternal decrees, and the Arminians are wrong here. It is important for us to remember, thought, that God's foreordination is performed by a mechanism that does not violate the wills of the creatures. The creatures make their own true choices. They are not robots. As I heard Bahnsen describe it, "God foreordains man's free choices" or something like that. 

Scott


----------

