Wednesday, September 4, 2019

Robert Roberts on the Dynamic Relationship of Human and Divine Will


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: