![]() If the Scripture could call wicked judges “gods” for this reason, how much more does Jesus deserve to be equated with God since He is God’s true Son sanctified and sent into the world by God Himself? The proof of this is that unlike the wicked rulers who were still called “gods”, Christ is not only perfectly representing His Father on earth, but doing the very works that God alone has the authority to do (vss. Yet he pointed to Psalm 82 where even wicked judges were called “gods” due to the fact that they were to represent God to His people. ![]() He was doing what no man could do as the perfect expression of the Father. Jesus was perfectly representing God in His earthly ministry. Jesus points them to His works as being the works of the Father. ![]() In John 10 Jesus appeals to these same passages when the Jewish leaders take up stones to stone him for blaspheme since Christ’s claims of oneness with the Father made Him equal to the Father (verses 30-33). Nevertheless you will die like men, and fall like any one of the princes.” Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is you who possesses all the nations. I said, “You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High. They do not know nor do they understand they walk about in darkness all the foundations of the earth are shaken. Rescue the weak and needy deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. How long will judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Vindicate the weak and fatherless do justice to the afflicted and destitute. In Psalm 82 God is seen to stand in judgment of the judges (“gods”) and rebuke them for their failure to represent God as they were called and elected by God to do: In the Psalm the rulers and judges of the people are called “gods” ( elohim) because they are to represent God to His people in their leadership and judgments. This is plainly seen in Psalm 82 quoted by Jesus to the Pharisees and Jewish leaders in John 10:34-38. While it is true that the king represents his people to a degree, the greater and more relevant truth is that the king was to represent God to his people in his judgments and decisions. Indeed, the context would lead us to a different conclusion, a conclusion that would see the Lord’s control as resistible and the result of the king’s free surrender of his will to the will of God. The passage also does not tell us that the Lord controls the king’s heart irresistibly, which is really what the Calvinist needs the text to say in order to support exhaustive determinism. The passage speaks of the king’s heart and should be understood in that context (in fact, this specific verse was most likely written by King Solomon concerning himself). First, there is nothing that necessitates us universalizing this simple passage. There are several problems with this interpretation. ![]() While the text speaks only of the heart of the king, the Calvinist feels justified in drawing a universal application based on the fact that the king represented his people and what is true of the king is surely true of everyone else. The intentions of our hearts are not in our control but in God’s control and He alone is able to direct their course. God alone determines our desires and choices, moving them in any direction He pleases. In short, this passage apparently teaches that God completely controls the human will. So if God controls our desires then He also controls our choices. The heart is generally considered to be the seat of desire and the Calvinist maintains that one always chooses according his or her greatest desire. The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hands of the Lord He turns it wherever He wishes. 21:1 as a text that confirms this doctrine as Biblical. The subject matter of this post is concerned only with Calvinists who hold to exhaustive determinism and see Prov. While there may be some Calvinists who do not hold to such a definition of sovereignty, it is the traditional Calvinist position held by John Calvin and most of his theological followers. If man has any independent control of his will then God is not “sovereign” according to the standard Calvinist understanding of sovereignty (exhaustive determinism). ![]() Their use of the passage is not intended to demonstrate that God may at times override the will as Arminians would have little difficulty affirming, but that God is always in control of the will in such a way that we cannot will or do anything that God Himself has not caused us to do. Very often Calvinists will cite Proverbs 21:1 as a proof text for God’s exhaustive control over the will and decisions of men. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |