Introduction
We are continuing through chapter two of Olson’s Getting the Gospel Right. For a complete list of the series see this post.
Acts 2:23
Acts 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
On this verse, Olson notes “Peter, while acknowledging the outworking of God’s pre-temporal foreknowledge, placed full responsibility for the crucifixion upon the evil men who did it.” It is certainly true that sinful men are always accountable and responsible for their actions. Men willingly rebel against God. Yet this rebellion is determined by God. If God had not given this to them they would not have crucified Christ.
Luke 22:22 22 For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined [to. w`risme,non], but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!"
John 19:11 11 Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin."
God determines that the Son of Man should be crucified. And the one who betrays Him is held accountable. God grants it to these people to crucify the Son but this is not God delegating and then relinquishing His sovereignty, indeed he is going as it has been determined. The way and manner by which He goes to the Cross has been set and determined by God, including the activity of those who crucify Him.
Acts 2:23 is clear that there is more than mere prescience of these events going on. It is God’s ‘determined will’ (w`risme,nh boulh/). The single article (th/ w`risme,nh boulh/ kai. prognw,sei tou/ qeou) with impersonal nouns means that the relationship between the two impersonal nouns can be: distinct, overlapping, first the subset of the second, second the subset of the first or identical (quite rare) (Wallace, 286). God’s determining will and his foreknowledge are not separate activities. Olson states, “Peter explicitly included God’s prescience in the implementation of his plan.” However, it is not that mere prescience is included but that these things, including the acts of the men to kill him, have come to pass through the determined will of God. Greek Grammarian Dan Wallace notes that the least attested meaning in a construction like this (article + impersonal noun + kai (and) + impersonal article) is the referential identity, i.e. that ‘predetermined plan’ is defined by foreknowledge (Wallace, 288). He states, “The relationship between the two terms here may be one of distinctness or subsumption of one under the other. In the context of Acts 2 and in light of Luke’s Christological argument “from prophecy and pattern,” the most likely option is that provgnwsiV is grounded in the w`risme,nh boulh, (thus “foreknowledge” is part of the “predetermined plan”), for one of the foci of the chapter is on the divine plan in relation to the Messiah’s death and resurrection. Thus, God’s decrees are not based on him simply foreknowing what human beings will do; rather, humanity’s actions are based on God’s foreknowledge and predetermined plan” (Wallace, 288). There would be no foreknowledge if there was not also a fixed plan in the mind of God.
Similarly we should compare the passage in Acts 4:28
Acts 4:27-28 27 "For truly in this city there 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, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
Acts 4:27-28 27 sunh,cqhsan ga.r evpV avlhqei,aj evn th/ po,lei tau,th evpi. to.n a[gion pai/da, sou VIhsou/n o]n e;crisaj( ~Hrw,dhj te kai. Po,ntioj Pila/toj su.n e;qnesin kai. laoi/j VIsrah,l( 28 poih/sai o[sa h` cei,r sou kai. h` boulh, ÎsouÐ prow,risen gene,sqaiÅ
Here we read that Herod and Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel do what God’s hand and His will appointed in advance. The verb “proori,zw” means to appoint, determine or fix in advance. The English equivalent is rightly to “predestine”. Furthermore, the Bible often uses the ‘hand’ of God as metaphor for His power and will accomplishes the intention of God. For example in Exodus, we see the hand of God against the Egyptians (3:20; 7:5; 9:3; 16:3; 32:11; et al). God’s hand brings deliverance (Ps. 20:6; 98:1; 109:27; 118:15,16). These men do what God’s hand and God’s purpose predestined to occur.
Olson states, “There is no hint of implication that God forced the will of the Jewish leaders…” No Calvinist says that God forces people’s will. They hold that God predestines and determines all the things that will occur and when man acts according to God’s plan and will, the human being is acting according to his own heart and desires. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith states,
“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.” (9.1)
The Westminster Confession of Faith demonstrates a consistent compatibilist view of freedom rather than a libertarian view of freedom. The Calvinist position is the fatalism where man is not responsible. It is not determinism where the will is coerced and forced. Calvinist consistently articulate that God uses secondary causes and the actions of men freely rebelling against God to fulfill His plan so that the Son might die for our sins.
Ironically, Olson tries to claim: “It would be no problem for an omniscient God to orchestrate events by His intensive knowledge of each of the players and circumstances” (p.20). Olson does not explain what “intensive knowledge” is. But is seems that Olson conception is that God’s determining and purpose is based upon knowledge of what each player will do. But the Bible teaches not that God has merely orchestrated things but that He has appointed and determined what will happen—both for the player and the circumstances. As we will see, His will governs all things in creation not merely the accomplishment of redemption.
Ephesians 1:11
Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
Ephesians 1:11 VEn w- kai. evklhrw,qhmen proorisqe,ntej kata. pro,qesin tou/ ta. pa,nta evnergou/ntoj kata. th.n boulh.n tou/ qelh,matoj auvtou/
This whole section of verses 1-11 focus on the plan and work of the Trinity. God carries out the election of believers in Christ. Before the foundation of the world, he chose us in Christ. He predestined us in love to receive the adoption. But this choice and predestination has been based upon nothing foreseen in us or our potential activity. We are told that this is “according to the purpose of his will” [kata. th.n euvdoki,an tou/ qelh,matoj auvtou/](v.5). “This gives the standard by which God’s actions were accomplished” (Hoehner, 198). His will is the determining factor so that it is “to the praise of His glorious grace” (eivj e;painon do,xhj th/j ca,ritoj auvtou/)—indicating the purpose or goal of God’s exercising of His will. Hoehner summarizes the section well:
“He accomplished this through (diav) his Son Jesus Christ to bring us to (eJiV) God himself. This was done according to (katav) to his pleasure freely operating from his own will. Because he has predestined us, he chose us out of all humanity. These actions are not only the basis of every spiritual blessing but also are the spiritual blessing themselves. It is any wonder that God is to be praised.” (Hoehner, 199)
We find out in vv. 7-9, that we have redemption in him (Christ) and the forgiveness of sins. He has lavished this grace on us making known this mystery of his will “according to His purpose”. Again the revealing of His will to us in redemption is according to His plan. Understanding this mystery of the gospel is part and parcel of our salvation. Then Paul states:
Ephesians 1:10 10 eivj oivkonomi,an tou/ plhrw,matoj tw/n kairw/n( avnakefalaiw,sasqai ta. pa,nta evn tw/ Cristw/( ta. evpi. toi/j ouvranoi/j kai. ta. evpi. th/j gh/j evn auvtw/Å
Ephesians 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth
“all things” here refers not just to believers but all things in heaven and on earth. To limit it to believer adds a thought to the text that is not explicitly there.
This is further proven by Paul’s use of “all things” elsewhere:
Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created through him and for him.
Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Colossians 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
“All things” does not just refer to people but all things in creation. It has a cosmic scope. It is these “all things” that Christ is the head over:
Ephesians 1:22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,
In fact, we find out that Christ “fills all in all” which echoes the language of 1:10 “to unite all things in him.” We will simple point out that this is not some Platonic notion of incorporation but rather has to do with the glory of God filling all things. “All things” has both a cosmic scope (both heaven and earth) and a temporal scope (for both the ‘this age’ and ‘the age to come’). This temporal language in Jewish thought is coextensive with all of human history. So Paul is really talking about everything at any time—and Christ has authority over it.
The article “ta. pa,nta” in verse ten substantizes pantes. In the English we say all things, instead of the literal Greek ‘the all’. This “all” is defined as “things in heaven and on earth”. It could refer to the redeemed but this is unlikely. First, the use in Colosians and Ephesians 1:22 suggest Paul has in view the cosmic scope of God’s redemption.
So when we get to Ephesians 1:11 we read:
Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
Ephesians 1:11 VEn w- kai. evklhrw,qhmen proorisqe,ntej kata. pro,qesin tou/ ta. pa,nta evnergou/ntoj kata. th.n boulh.n tou/ qelh,matoj auvtou/
It is possible, as Olson notes, that the article might have a demonstrative force, if it does however it is referring to the “all things” mentioned in verse 10. Olson states “This [the demonstrative] would make it clear that the “all things” of 1:11 has to do with ‘all these things’ of the redemptive plan of God just alluded to, not with all human events” (v.21). However, this is arbitrarily inserted based upon Olson’s presupposition and theology that “all things” can only refer to redemptive activity of God. No. The nearest reference that adds the least to Paul’s thought is the “all things” is the same “all things” in verse 10. It really does mean all things not just soteriological events. It is things in heaven and on earth. As we have noted Paul uses all things to have a cosmic scope: it includes everything in every age.
Commenting on the grammar and construction Harold Hoehner puts it this way:
“In the present context tou/ ta. pa,nta evnergou/ntoj is active and transitive with the accusative of the thing referring to God as he takes an active part in all things. The present tense refers to God’s continual activity toward the purpose that he resolved in eternity past. The “all things” (ta. pa,nta) refers to all of God’s providence and must not be restricted to God’s redemptive plan. This coincides with verse 10 where “all things” are described as “those things in heaven and those things on earth.”” (Hoehner, 229)
In short, while Olson appears to be inductive, in reality, his exegesis adds too much to the text. His previously held view that God cannot ordain and decree all things causes him to posit that “all things” in verse 10 must be limited to believers and that the so-called ‘demonstrative’ must refer to redemption. This gives the appearance of using the grammar and being inductive. However, Olson obscures the grammar and tries to hard to prove that “all things” cannot really mean ‘everything’—even though that is how Paul uses it in parallel contexts.
Boldly Olson asserts, “All uses of this verse as a proof-text for the exhaustive sovereignty of God is crass Scripture twisting” (p. 21). We believe this is flat wrong. We will let the reader judge which exegesis adds the least meaning to the text.
Misc.
The rest of Olson’s chapter falls into the trap of building a theology at word level. As we have argued, this is not how one does theology. This may appear inductive but it really avoids passages and their contexts that may contain the idea but not the word.
Olson claims that 2 Peter 3:9 is a problem for Calvinists but cites no sources. The Calvinist treatments of the text recognize that God has a preceptive will (see for example Piper; Frame, 534-537; Murray). They do not assume that this must be the notion of a ‘decree’ here (there are two different interpretations of this passage by Calvinists—this doesn’t make the verse “a problem”). Perhaps Olson sees this as a problem because he ties this passage to the legitimacy of the offer of the gospel: “This purpose of God, that all should come to repentance, makes the offer of the gospel a legitimate, bona fide offer” (p.22). To Olson, Calvinism cannot not legitimately offer the gospel to all without distinction (pp. 349-51; 357-59).
Olson also argues that “purpose” does not mean “comprehensive plan”. But again, the issue is that context and usage do not simply lexical meaning. Furthermore, his position really removes the purposing of God based on his will and good pleasure and makes God’s purpose conditional upon the foreseen response of the person. So for example:
2 Timothy 1:9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,
Olson states, “Whether this is worked out conditionally or unconditionally is not stipulated.” What? What does it mean “not because of works” or ‘on account of works’ but ‘on account of his own purpose and grace’? Clearly the condition is not something that man does (e.g. a work) but the basis is His own purpose and grace. The contrast is not between ‘faith’ and ‘works’ as in Romans 3 and 4. Instead the contrast is between God’s own activity and our activity. He saved us not because of our response and activity but solely because of His purpose and grace. Grace that is conditional is not really grace. Either it is God’s set determined purpose or it is something conditioned in man. Paul chooses the former.
Olson tell us that “the solution to the serious polarization concerning who our God really is and how He relates to humans is found in the mediate view” (p. 23). However, while he has taken a clear stance against Calvinism, he has shown neither where the Arminian stands on these issues, nor how his position is mediate. In fact, his position is essentially a modified Arminianism. One should not pretend to be in the middle when one is truly on this side or that side of an issue. One should not appear moderate particularly when the issue at hand is of such importance, namely the glorious intricacy of God who in His exhaustive plan, He both foreknew and decreed salvation for mankind. For Olson, God works things out and orchestrates things forseeing what man will do and arranging all the pieces accordingly:
“It would be no problem for an omniscient God to orchestrate events by His intensive knowledge of each of the players and circumstances. Indeed, Peter explicitly included God’s prescience in the implementation of His plan (Acts 2:23)…So far there is no hint that this purpose, plan, or counsel of God exhaustively includes every event in the universe, including all the worst eruption of Satan’s and mankind’s evil over the centuries.” (p.20)
“Therefore, there is absolutely no basis for denying the clearly conditional force of both 1 Peter 1:1-2 and Romans 8:28-30, conditioned on what God foreknew about His saints, especially their faith.” (p.272)
“By His omniscient foreknowledge of both eventualities and non-eventual possibilities God orchestrates and arranges those events He chooses without coercing the wills of the moral agents involved. God’s foreknowledge cannot be contingent upon His will.” (p.304)
The plan is not passed upon God’s determining and purpose along but God’s purpose bent and molded to what He sees man will do. On this issue, Olson demonstrates a thoroughgoing an Arminian position.
On the issue of open theism Olson misrepresents the issue. He states, “Both Calvinists and open theists err in making the certainty of the future contingent upon God’s determining it, but with differing outcomes—the Calvinist future being certain; the open theist’s future, partially open and certain. Both views are in error because God’s acts (decrees) [I thought there weren’t any decrees other than the resurrection? P.13,19] must flow from His attributes (omniscience), not the reverse.”
First, open theists also say that if God foreknows what will come to pass, then man does not truly have libertarian free will. In other words, if God foreknows what will happen, then man has to do it (or God wouldn’t have foreknown the event) and man really doesn’t have a choice because he is ‘locked in’ if God foreknows the event and it outcome. Open theists do not make the certainty of the future based upon God’s determining it, rather if the future is certain, then man is not truly free. This is far from Calvinism and Arminianism. It is unfairly misrepresentative and highly generalized to make Calvinism and open theism appear as two sides to the same coin.
Second, to Olson’s comment: “God’s acts (decrees) must flow from His attributes (omniscience), not the reverse.” One ought to ask “why?” How do we know? Where is this proved inductively? He argues that it is a philosophical error to say ‘that God cannot foreknow that which He has not determined’ (p. 23). He quotes Buswell’s “For men to declare that God could not know a free event in the future seems to me sheer dogmaticism” (p.24). But is it not sheer dogmatism to assert boldly “God’s acts (decrees) must flow from His attributes (omniscience), not the reverse.” In other words, why can’t God know something because He has decreed it? I would agree that God does not act contrary to His character but why is omniscience alone the attribute from which His decrees must flow? Why not His omnipotence? If God’s Word calls creation into being, why can it not call the free acts of men into being and determine such free acts according to His own plan? In fact, we should not single out one attribute over another attribute in the Godhead rather we should see that God’s acts flow from the composite whole of His attributes. The Biblical portrait of God is not one who limits certain attributes. He does not restrict His activity of Kingship and sovereignty as if to the limit of the exercise of His omnipotence. Indeed, it is presumptuous to claim to know how God must limit His sovereignty for man to have responsibility for his actions (to echo the quote from Buswell). The question is, Biblically does God do whatever He pleases? Does He take man into account?
Daniel 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
Job 23:13 But he is unchangeable, and who can turn him back? What he desires, that he does.
Psalm 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.
Psalm 135:6 Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.
Third, the critique of open theism comes back upon Olson, is man really free at the point of acting if God knows the outcome. If God knows that outcome, then that is what has to happen. If God knows Bob will choose A, then is Bob really free to choose ‘not A’? This assume God’s foreknowledge is not bound by time and it is eternal. Even if Bob chooses ‘not A’, then God had to foreknow that is what he would do, so could he have really chosen ‘A’? If God’s purpose and determination is based on what man will do but God’s purposes it in advance of what man will do—then when the man comes to do it, he has to act according to the purpose foreseen by God.
The self-limitation that Olson argues for is exactly what the open theist argues for. God simply self-limits his omniscience and foreknowledge to protect man’s freedom, according to the open theist. Of course, the difference is the Olson believes in God’s foreknowledge and the open theist rejects that God foreknows all things. However, there is the same concept of God’s ‘self-limitation.’ The open theist just holds that God self-limits himself a little more than Olson argues.
God’s delegation of dominion to man (p.24) does not limit and restrict God’s dominion. Nowhere in the Bible is God described as restricting His rule over creation (Ps. 65:9-11; Ps. 104:10-30; 135:6-7; 147:8-9, 15-18).
Conclusion:
Nothing is outside the plan and purpose of God. This plan is from all eternity. Not even games of chance are outside of God’s control. His hand is guiding all things forward to His desired end.
Proverbs 16:33 33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
We have completed our review of chapter two.
Bibliography
Frame, John. The Doctrine of God, (Philipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002).
Hoehner, Harold. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2002).
Murray, John “The Free Offer of the Gospel” Collected Works, Volume 4: Studies in Theology (Carlisle, Penn.: Banner of Truth, 1982) 113-132.
Piper, John “Are There Two Wills in God?” Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge and Grace (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2000)107-131.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996).
Posts
