Lies, Damned Lies, and Predestination

The debate over free will and predestination has been around a long time. It is unlikely to disappear in our lifetime.

But . . .

In re-reading (after 32 years) Van Til’s, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, I was reminded of how the idea of predestination fits philosophically and theologically into a larger logical framework.

Presuppositions deal with the “preconditions of intelligibility”. What is it that allows “logic” to drive us to particular conclusions?

There are some who believe that it is wrong to insist on conclusions. This point was hammered home by Martin Luther in his Bondage of the Will. He did not use the word conclusions; he used the word assertions. Erasmus had denied the use of assertions, just as there are some people today who deny the legitimacy of conclusions.

“Take away assertions,” wrote Luther, “and you take away Christianity.” True enough. But Luther’s statement by itself does not explain the philosophy behind the “no assertions” idea. Take away assertions that are true – statements of factuality – and you take away the ability to hold any rational discussion. Period. It’s not just Christianity that falls apart, but so do science, mathematics, history, and any attempt at rational thought.

Underneath this “no conclusions” or “no assertions” idea, however, is a worldview that contradicts itself. Here’s why.

“It is my conclusion that there should be no conclusions.” Or, “It is my assertion there should be no assertions.” Or you can mix them: “It is my assertion there should be no conclusions.”

Try this one: “The Hebrew world is interested in process, not conclusions, which is a Greek mindset.” Now is that a Greek conclusion about a Hebrew no-conclusion, no assertion, worldview?

Do you get it? To respond in this manner is not allowed, apparently, for I am making a conclusion about an assertion! That’s the very thing you’re not supposed to do. “We will not permit you to contradict our assertions or conclusions with assertions or conclusions of your own.”

Legalism

There’s another popular way of expressing this view. “Let’s not be legalistic about this.” This is just another way of saying don’t make any firm assertions or conclusions. We’ll put ourselves on the merry-go-round of process, never arriving at a conclusion. To make a conclusion, an assertion, would be “legalistic.”

And this is called “logic.” It’s nuts.

Back to Van Til. The meaning of anything, any fact, is found in the relationship that fact has to all other facts. This is how the ultimate “meaning” of facts is derived. And all facts are exactly where they are because that is where God has placed them. True facts exist for God alone, for only he has exhaustive knowledge that correctly places each fact in relation to all other facts, thereby giving that fact its meaning. To put this another way, facts are what they are because God arranged them that way.

When Eve was confronted in the Garden with this problem, the Tempter’s assertion was for Eve to accept that the world is a world of potentiality. Facts are not what God says they are. Elohim, along with Adam and Eve, is exposed to the same facts. These are “brute” facts, which now need meaning to be given to them. Eat of the fruit, said the Tempter, and you will be “like” God. Meaning will no longer come from what God says it is. You cannot accept God at his word. Eve, conduct the experiment. Take up the challenge. Eat the fruit, and become the determiner of facts, for whoever determines what they are, also controls them. Now the created order will provide the “true” meaning of facts.

Without exhaustive knowledge, however, uncertainty is introduced into the discussion. Any claim of knowledge is, at the same time, a claim of omniscience and infallibility. Without these, facts are only “temporary observations.” In a finite world of infinite possibility, any claim to know something today is subject to change upon new discovery. There is, in other words, no truth. Just temporary observations which may, or may not be true. Have to find out more before we can make that statement.

This is the philosophical basis of the no assertions, no conclusions, let’s not be legalistic claims. We cannot be certain, they say, and given their basic premises, they are absolutely right. But they are not content to stop at that point. Then they want to contradict themselves and, as my piano professor used to delight in saying, “there is only one truth: there is no truth.” Or, “there is only one conclusion: there are no conclusions.” Again, “there is only one assertion, there should be no assertions.” Anything else, they say, would be legalism.

Uncertainty at the basic philosophical level means that no assertions or conclusions of any kind are possible. It is not even possible to assert, “there are no assertions.”

So the “no assertions” or “no conclusions” idea is based on a false philosophy, a false worldview. That is not only why it contradicts itself but also why men give up on the idea of true knowledge. True knowledge implies “legalism.”

To make such a conclusion about assertions, however, requires adoption of the biblical world view. On any other basis, the “there can be no conclusions or assertions” becomes its own form of legalism, a contradiction to its basic premise.

On the other hand, the biblical world view starts with the absolute sovereignty of God, the self-sufficient, God who created all things and has spoken in the Scriptures. That’s legalism, in the view of some people. It is because Scripture describes creation, man and God that the preconditions of rational thought and intelligibility are possible. It is God who provides those preconditions. Not just the idea of God, but the personal, Triune, Creator and Controller of all things, who has revealed himself in Scripture.

The alternative to the absolute self-attesting God, the ontological Trinity of Scripture, is chaos, not a better or more informed worldview. And such a chaos is introduced in the denial of God’s absolute predestination of all things. “Yea, I have made all things for its own end; even the wicked for the day of destruction” (Prov. 16:7). This is one of the most ignored verses in Scripture. It cannot mean what it appears to mean. That would be making a conclusion, or making an assertion. It is better to have illogicality and the mirage of “free will” than to admit the meaning of these words.

But it also an assertion that facts are what they are because God has declared it that way. Not only in the past, but in the future. “I have made . . . for the day of destruction.”

To give up predestination, even in one area such as man’s salvation, is to take away the meaning of facts and make facts now dependent upon man’s determination. God may have an idea, but in the end He cooperates with man’s definition of facts. Such a view does not make the world a better place, but instead appeals to the desire of man to be like God – the predestinator of all things (Gen. 3:5).

Men will have their dreams. Philosophers and theologians will have their demand for unrestricted free choice. If men cannot make assertions, neither can God. If men are not supposed to be legalistic, neither is God. If man cannot control his future and determine his own outcome, neither can God.

God’s response? Psalm 2:4 “He who sits in heaven laughs; Adonai looks at them in derision.” Why? Because He can. And that’s predestination.