19th
century theologian Robert Roberts (1839-1898), was the second pioneer of the
Christadelphian movement, next to its founder John Thomas (1805-1871). While I
strongly disagree with much of Christadelphian theology (see my Listing
of Articles on Christadelphian Issues), the following from his 1881 The Ways of Providence, discussing how
God’s will and human free-will work together, without one negating or overpowering the other,
were rather spot-on. Commenting on God changing his mind as a result of
Ahab’s free-will actions, Roberts wrote:
A case of providence being affected and
diverted by human action was furnished in the life of Ahab before he came to
[his] unhappy end . .. .He appears to have been deeply impressed with Elijah’s
having denounced his appropriation of the vineyard of Naboth. It is written
that “when Ahab heard these words, he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon
his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly”. It is the result
of this attitude on Ahab’s part that constitutes the case in question. “The
word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, Seest thou how Ahab
humbleth himself before me? Because he
humbleth himself before me, I WILL NOT BRING THE EVIL IN HIS DAYS: but in
his son’s days will I bring the evil upon his house” (1 Kings 21:28). If the
repentant and humble attitude of a man like Ahab warded off an intended
visitation of providential evil, we may learn that wisdom of that emendation of
evil ways which is the constant inculcation of the Spirit of God calling to the
sons of men in the scripture. We should never despair, but, confessing our sins
and forsaking them, seek that mercy at the Father’s hand which at the last
moment may defer appointed punishment. (Robert Roberts, The Ways of Providence As Authentically Illustrated in Bible History [6th
ed.; Birmingham: The Christadelphian, 1955], 168-69)
Commenting on
the covenant made with David, its importance, and it being established as a
result of David’s free-will, Roberts noted:
This covenant occupies a prominent and important
place in the economy of the divine purpose. David referred to it, in his last
words, as affording the groundwork of “all his salvation and all his desire” (2
Sam. 23:5). Jehovah places importance upon it by offering to extend it to every
one who submits to Him, saying “I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
even the sure (or covenanted) mercies of David” (Isa. 55:3). He refers
impressively to it thus: “My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing
that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not
lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun
before me” (Psa. 89:34-36). Peter also refers to it in his address on the day
of Pentecost (Acts 2:29); and Paul indirectly alludes to it in speaking of “the
covenants of promise” to which the
Gentiles are by nature strangers (Eph. 2:12).
Now the striking fact in the case as
illustrative of the ways of providence, is that this covenant with David—one of
the chief pillars, as we may say, of the city having foundations—was brought
about, so far as David was concerned, by David’s own natural spontaneous
meditations and intentions concerning the work of God. We are told that the
Lord having given David rest from his enemies, he began to grow uneasy by the
fact that while he dwelt in a palace, the ark of God was under a tent. He
mentioned his feelings to Nathan the prophet, as much as to intimate that he
begrudged his own personal comforts and enjoyments while the things of God were
less well-appointed; and that he would like to put up a substantial edifice for
the divine service and honour. Nathan encouraged David in his view: “Go, do all
that is in thine heart; for the Lord is with thee” (2 Sam. 7:3). But that
night, a different light was put upon the subject by the message that came to
Nathan. David was forbidden to build the contemplated temple, Having shed much
blood, he was declared unsuitable, in the divine fitness of thing, for
undertaking a work of worship and peace. He was commended for entertaining the
idea: “Thou didst well that it was in thine heart to build an house to my name.
Nevertheless, thou shalt not build the house” (1 Kings 8:18). “Also, the Lord
telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled,
and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which
shall proceed out of thine own bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He
shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his
kingdom for ever . . . Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for
ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever” (2 Sam. 7:11-16).
This, doubtless, had reference to Solomon, in whom also it had a preliminary
fulfilment: but we have the authority of the Spirit of God, both in the
prophets and the apostles, for giving it a much remoter, larger, and more
glorious application to the “greater than Solomon”, the Son, the Lord of David,
the antitype and substance of all the allegories contained in the first
covenant and its surroundings. What is worthy of special consideration is, that
the important institute of the kingdom of God should have found the occasion of
its introduction in David’s own faithfulness, working in quite a natural way.
There are several illustrations of the same
thing. The glorious vision of Daniel 2—revealing the course of human affairs
from the days of Babylon to the setting up of the kingdom of God in the latter
days—was communicated in answer to Daniel’s faithful prayer for deliverance
from impending peril. Who knows if such a revelation would ever have taken place
if Daniel, instead of having earnestly “desired mercies of the God of heaven”,
had supinely cowered in God-forgetting concealment? The appearance of John the
Baptist, though a matter of God’s deliberate and prophetically-enunciated
purpose, coincided in the same way with the entreaties of a man and woman who
were “both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments of the Lord,
blameless” (Luke 1:6). The angel, who announced John’s coming birth to
Zacharias, gives us to understand this. “Fear not, Zacharias, for thy prayer is heard, and thy wife
Elisabeth (who was ‘barren and well-stricken in years’) shall bear thee a son.”
So also the call of the Gentiles began with a man to whom the angel could say, “Thy
prayers and thine alms are come up for a
memorial before God.” (Ibid., 141-43)
Such comments on the dynamic relationship between human free-will and God's will would be accepted by most outside a Reformed/Calvinistic persuasion, including Latter-day Saints. For a thorough refutation of such a theology, see my paper:
