The God-Centeredness of God

I love the first question in the Westminster Shorter Catechism: "What is the chief end of man? Man's chief end is to love God and enjoy Him forever." That one question gives a well-rounded purpose to a man's life and puts God at the center. I think that even Arminians will agree with the answer, though their theology is inconsistent with such a profession. The average professing Christian on the street, if asked, "What is the chief end of God?" would answer, "God's chief end is to love me and to cause me to enjoy my life of autonomy."

What is the biblical answer to that question? "God's chief end is to glorify and enjoy Himself forever."

In the Scriptures, while God certainly expresses His love for His people, we always seem to gloss over His expressions of love for Himself. We read of God's calling out of Israel to be His special covenant people (such as Deuteronomy 7:7). However, when was the last time that you heard anyone read this verse: "I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations among whom they lived, in whose sight I made myself known to them in bringing them out of the land of Egypt" (Ezekiel 20:9)? Or this one: "I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came" (Ezekiel 36:21)? While Israel was certainly the beneficiary of God's covenantal love, that wasn't the reason that He gave it. It wasn't for their sakes, but for the sake of His own glory.

That's why God says, through His prophets, twice, "I will not give my glory to another" (Isaiah 42:8, 48:11). And that is whether we are talking about another deity, another man, or even to the state. He reserves it to Himself. Both atheists and Arminians attack that concept as an ego trip. However, the accusation shows an irrational hatred of the sovereignty of God. Isn't an ego trip thinking of one's self as greater than is actually the case? Yet, how can God think of Himself - or we think of Him - more highly than He deserves? The accusation is self-refuting!

Reprobation: A Sorrowful Truth

"You are our Father,
though Abraham does not know us,
and Israel does not acknowledge us; 
You, O Lord, are our Father,
our Redeemer from of old is Your name.
O Lord, why do You make us wander from Your ways
and harden our heart, so that we fear You not?
Return for the sake of Your servants,
the tribes of Your heritage.
Your holy people held possession for a little while;^f
our adversaries have trampled down Your sanctuary.
We have become like those over whom You have never ruled,like those who are not called by Your name."
- Isaiah 63:16-19 

These are very sad words, near the end of the prophecies of Isaiah. Much of the Book of Isaiah is God's declarations of the apostasies of Israel, and her coming judgment at the hands of the Babylonians. And, as a member of the society, Isaiah has natural feelings of sorrow over the spiritual condition of his nation. In these verses, he gives vent to that sorrow. However, we don't see what we often see people say in the face of impending tragedy. At no point is he mystified about why things are happening. He never wonders why God can't seem to do anything. His reaction is very different.

Look at the questions he asks: "O Lord, why do You make us wander from Your ways and harden our heart?" His gut reaction is to attribute all to the sovereignty of God. This is the doctrine of reprobation. In our modern society, even among professing evangelicals, we have a serious problem with this doctrine. After all, aren't we the masters of our own fate? Of course, that very reaction is proof of how far bald-faced humanism has come to dominate both society and professing church. The goal of every man is self-actualization, happiness, self-fulfillment. And, of course, religion is supposed to serve those goals.

However, the Bible-believer must reject that worldview. What does the Bible say? "So, whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (I Corinthians 10:31). Ah, that is quite the reverse, isn't it? Life isn't for our fulfillment but for God's! That's why my own Presbyterian forefathers started both of our catechisms with that precept: "What is the chief end of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever." They cite as proof both this verse from First Corinthians and Romans 11:36.

Notice that the principle of both Scripture and the Catechisms is God-centered, while society is man-centered. Not only are those contrary principles, they are hostile principles, necessarily in conflict with each other. Thus, I understand the hatred that people, whether professing Christians or otherwise, have for this doctrine. It is because it is a declaration of war on their comfortable self-love.

Repentance Is Not Optional

I have noticed an attitude among Christians that says that repentance is a good thing, but nothing more. One can repent, or not, as he sees fit. It has become more of a matter of feelings. That is, if a sinful act has brought feelings of guilt, then repent, so you can feel better about yourself. But that is certainly not a biblical view of repentance.

First of all, repentance is a command, not a suggestion. Consider Acts 17:30: "[God] commands all people everywhere to repent." From Whom does the command originate? From God. To whom is it directed? To all, man, woman, and child, whether professing Christian or not. And people where? Everywhere, i. e., in every nation, of whatever culture. And the logic is compelling. Since every human being (Jesus excepted, of course) is a sinner (Romans 3:23), without regard to age (Psalm 51:5), and is under judgment for that sin (Romans 6:23), there is no human being (again excepting Jesus) who is not in need of repentance.See also Luke 24:47.

However, since we are sinners, we are incapable of any spiritual good (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:10-12). That is because sin has killed us, spiritually speaking (Ephesians 2:1). That leaves us without the ability to fulfill this command out of our mere will to do so. In fact, it is impossible for us to will to do so. Rather, it is necessary for God to change our wills (Philippians 2:13). When He does so, then He enables the regenerate sinner to repent of sin (Acts 5:31, II Timothy 2:25). What a wonder that is, that He creates in us the thing that He demands from us!

But the amazement continues: when He grants repentance to the sinner, there is celebration, both on earth and in heaven. When men see a sinner repent, they give glory to God for His grace (Acts 11:18). And in heaven, even the angels celebrate (Psalm 89:5, Luke 15:10).

In writing this, my hope is that someone, somewhere, feeling the oppression of his sin, will answer the Lord's command to repent, turn to Jesus for the forgiveness of that sin, that I and the angels may celebrate! My email address is in the panel to the right. I hope that someone will write me to tell of that experience. But, even if you don't, I hope that you will receive and experience this gift of God, and know that the angels in heaven celebrate with you.

Someone may be saying that he doesn't understand what repentance is. I will give you an historical answer, question 87 from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, one of the doctrinal documents used in Presbyterian churches: "What is repentance unto life? Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavour after, new obedience."

Is God Responsible for Sin?

Related to the so-called question of evil is the question, Is God the author of sin? Did He create sin? Is sin under His control?

Let me first address the Arminian answer to this question: sin is the result of man's free will, with the permission of God. This, the Arminian believes, relieves God of any responsibility for sin, as is supposedly required by James 1:13. However, I would suggest that the Arminian solution falls short of the weight that Arminians put on it. If I had a teenage son who told me that he intended to kill his schoolmates (as in the Columbine massacre), and I did not stop him, would I be considered free of guilt, because I merely permitted my son's wicked actions? Of course not! Both morally and legally, I would be culpable for not acting to prevent his actions. This is comparable to the Arminian attitude toward God's permission of sin. If God knew that Adam (or any of his descendants) would commit an evil act, and could have prevented it - with both of which statements the Arminian would agree - then was it not reprehensible for Him not to have prevented it? Of course, it was, so that the Arminian excuse of mere permission in no way meets his own criterion for avoiding responsibility.

In contrast, the Calvinist - including myself - insists that God is always God, and all things occur, not by His mere permission, but by His active decree. That includes things that we consider evil, whether properly so or not.

Do I then make God guilty of the acts of evil which I plainly say happen according to His decree? And the answer is no, I don't. How so?

Let me first demonstrate my assertion that all things, including what men would consider evil (whether properly so or otherwise), occur only according to the purposes of God. In Zechariah 1:14-15, that Prophet quotes God, saying, "I am exceedingly jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion, and I am exceedingly angry with the nations that are at ease. For, while I was angry but a little, they furthered the disaster." The situation is the time of the end of the exile in Babylon. As is commonly known, the Babylonians were God's tool for the punishment of Judah for idolatry. However, though Babylon was the tool of God, in her own intentions she had acted in evil, and thus incurred the wrath of God.


In Gen. 50:20, Joseph, the son of Jacob, told his brothers, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." Do you recall the story? Joseph was favored by his father over his brothers, because his mother was Jacob's favorite wife. Out of jealousy, his brothers sold him into slavery, but told his father that he had been slain by beasts. After a series of adventures, Joseph became the prime minister of Egypt at a time when there was famine in Canaan. As a result, he was in a position to save his family from starvation. An act of sin on the part of the brothers was according to God's plan to save the covenant people.

In Acts 4:27-28, the Apostle Peter is preaching to the leaders of the Jews, and then prays: "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, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." He explicitly states that God had predestined - decreed before history began - that Jesus would suffer and be murdered for the salvation of His people. The greatest evil that has ever occurred in the bloody and violent history of mankind happened by the predetermined purpose of God.

So, now we come to the question at issue: is God thereby the author of sin, of evil, of the wickedness of men? No, He is not. What is sin? As Question 14 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism says, "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God." Sin is the repudiation of God's authority. That definition self-evidently excludes the acts of God Himself. In addition, all that God does is for His own glory (see, for example, Isaiah 43:7) and for the good of the elect (Romans 8:28-29). That means that everything He does is necessarily good. In contrast, wicked men always act to spite the glory of God and to destroy the elect. That means that everything they do, in terms of their intent, is evil, sinful, wicked. As can be seen in the verses above, the same act, as committed by men, may be sin, but, as it is decreed by God, is only good.

Just Thinking About Some Theological Stuff: Supralapsarianism

For the last couple of days, I have been pondering one of the deeper issues in Reformed theology: the division between supralapsarians and infralapsarians. How are those for fifty-cent words? Anyway, what I say below is my thinking process. I am not completely decided, so I in no way intend what I say to be taken dogmatically.  I am just laying out where my thinking is.

The issue is a division over the order of the decrees. Supralapsarians place election in the mind of God before the fall into sin. That is, from Latin, "supra," above, "lapsus", the fall. Infralapsarians (also called "sublapsarians"), in contrast, place the fall ahead of election. That is, "infra," below, "lapsus," the fall. The difference is over whether God elected a people, then used the creation and fall of Adam to attain the goals of election. Or did He create Adam, who then fell, and then God elected a people as a remedy for the fall. Note that these are not intended to be considered actions in time, but rather the purposes in the mind of God.

To my mind, supralapsarianism reserves election to the issue of God's glory, alone. God is glorified when His attributes are exhibited. Accordingly, election served to satisfy God's existence, not man's. For example, Paul explains that predestination reveals the glory of His mercy (Romans 9:23), of His grace (Ephesians 1:6), and of His riches (Ephesians 1:18). While predestination certainly occurred in love (Ephesians 1:4-5), even that was first His love to us, not ours to Him (I John 4:19, but also in the entire passage of verses 7-21). In other words, to glorify His attribute of love.

In addition, it seems to me that only the supralapsarian view gives full credence to Romans 9:21: "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel to honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" That certainly seems to place God's will as the a priori principle of predestination and reprobation, not a posteriori as required by infralapsarianism.

While both supralapsarians and infralapsarians place the decrees in the mind of God before the Creation, i.e., before time (see Ephesians 1:4, Hebrews 4:3, and Revelation 17:8), infralapsarians still view election as a remedy for the fall. Their reasoning is that to do otherwise makes God the author of sin. And I certainly grant that as a serious issue. However, I suggest that the objection must be made to Paul, not to supralapsarians. I don't know how to resolve this particular question. However, since I consider all of Scripture to be the Word of God, I must submit to what the Scripture says, and let my own doubts or questions fall wherever they may. And the question is, indeed, acknowledged even in the Scriptures themselves. In Isaiah 45:7, God says, "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, Who does all these things."

And finally, I have a problem with the idea of God's doing something to remedy an action of man, as if He were caught by surprise. That makes the purposes of God subject to men, while Scripture puts men subject to the purposes of God (Isaiah 42:8, 43:7, and 48:11).

The first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism correctly states that the chief end of man is "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." However, fallen man turns it around and acts as if God's chief end is to glorify man! Reformed theology is a correction to that crowning error of humanism. And supralapsarianism seems to me to be the consistent application of Reformed, i.e., biblical, theology.

Addendum on 12/1/13: I am reading the Reformed Dogmatics of Dutch-American theologian Herman Hoeksema. His answer to the question of God as author of sin seems reasonable. He says that sin lies in the motivation, not in the act per se. He gives the example of killing. Murder for gain is sinful; the execution of a criminal as an act of justice is not. Therefore, God's purpose in predestining the acts of the reprobate contains no sin, because His purpose is to further His plan of redemption of the elect. The act may be sin in the person committing it, because his motivation in the act is sinful, but that motivation is the responsibility of the sinner, not of the providence of God.

The Third Commandment: God's Judgment on Biblical Scepticism

"Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain." [ASV]