Perspectives : Provocative Predestination

If there's one issue that people are either confused, myself included, or find themselves disagreeing about, this is it. There is such a spectrum of positions that range from double predestination to free choice, and that notoriously incomprehensible stance that the whole lot is a matter of being confined to a temporal perspective. I'll try to sort it out herein, just to think for myself how it might work, instead of becoming increasingly bemused in a forest of opinions.

I will only be talking about predestination of salvation, since it would be nigh impossible to do a decent analysis of predestination in all its multitudinous manifestations. It seems to me that it the issue of predestination of salvation is linked with the nature of sin, since the choice I'm looking at is simply defined as living in line with God's will, or not living in line with God's will. Within this framework, salvation is simply the moment when we acknowledge that we really ought to be living in line with God's will, and earnestly embark on the path of grace that God offers us to get there.

To begin with, it may be helpful to return to first principles to examine what factors play into that tremendous decision. The largest characteristic that seems to affect our acceptance of salvation is our sinful nature, so I'll take some time to dissect that first. Let us look to Adam and Eve. They were created in line with God's will; good beings with fellowship with God. They are the only verifiable example of human beings living in perfect harmony with the Creator, and choosing to disobey Him. The other human being who lived in harmony with His God was Jesus, and thank God He didn't disobey. In Adam and Eve's case, the choice was fairly simple, God clearly set up a situation where they had the agency, to obey or disobey, and the command was as dichotomous as it could be.

Sadly for the rest of us, they chose disobedience. Along with that, they manifested the curious 'sinful nature'. God did not create them with the 'sinful nature', rather, it is something that they come to possess after the original sin. Sinful nature is commonly described as a tendency to sin, and not sinful in and of itself, but what exactly is it? 

Do bear with this a little, but when we look at the nature of sin, what is it that allows us to resist? If you examine the life of Jesus, we find that the single effective thing that Jesus relies on repeatedly to endure temptation is His relationship with the Father. He quotes scripture, or remembers that the Father's will must come before His own. A loving relationship with the Father is apparently the only effective defence against the traps of temptation. Now that seems rather odd, since Adam and Eve had that relationship with their God, it also means that they had the means, if only they had relied on it, to resist the serpent's lies. 

But once they disobeyed, they lost that relationship with God, and apparently, that implies that they have nothing left that can shield them from the barbs of sin. A holy God cannot co-exist in full relationship with unholy beings, as they would be struck down by His very presence. So He had to leave them alone, to distance Himself from them. The very act of removal was an act of mercy, for nothing would have been wrong if God, in His wrath against the first two humans, struck them dead in His perfect presence.

To get a sense of the severity of God's wrath, He says this to the Israelites as they leave for Canaan :

Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way.

- Exodus 33 : 3

Moses does plead with God to come with them, and He does in the end, but takes adequate precautions not to show His face, about which He says none of the Israelites may see and live.

Thus, the sinful nature might be viewed as a state of being out of fellowship with God, and thus not having the adequate protection from the lies of sin. If that is the case, then it is comparatively easy to move out of line with God, while it is nigh impossible to do the converse. When we are in fellowship with God, right and wrong are clear, sin is as easily singled out as a black point on a white sheet. On the other hand, when we are not in fellowship with Him, everything is blended into shades of grey. In that murky fog, it is easy for us to stumble into sin without us even knowing it, and that is the sinful nature. You do not need a sinful nature to sin, but once you sin and acquire the sinful nature, or rather, lose intimacy with God, you most certainly will continue to sin. To choose our desires over God's desires. It is from this severed state that we can be saved.

For reasons that may never be easily answered, all the descendants of Adam were also born without an intimate relationship with God. We were all born into sinful nature, and thus, all soon ensnared in some vice or other. Perhaps this has to do with the restraint of the Holy not approaching the unholy, for fear of invoking wrath and annihilating that which is unholy.

However, having a sinful nature is not mutually exclusive with desiring God, just as having a relationship with God does not exclude the choice of stepping away from Him. By the grace of God, who laid the path before us, that true, earnest desire for Him is all that is required of us to receive His salvation. We have many examples of sinful people desiring God, even in the old testament times, from Abel, to Abraham, to Moses, to Rahab, to King David, to Isaiah. Simply put, these people are those whom God calls his elect, and who seek him despite their sinful nature, and they were saved by their faith.

So we have established that the state of our relationship with God, which may be broken or whole, affects, but does not fully determine, what our desire towards God is, namely to be in a relationship with God or to be separate from Him. We also know that God accepts any that come to Him, no matter what their background. From the Godly kings of Judah to the downtrodden prostitutes and tax collectors of Galilee. This implies that it is still our responsibility to choose to seek God, that our backgrounds, race, gender and apparent magnitude of sin - any attribute of ours, really - will ultimately have no effect on that key decision to trust God or to trust something else.

Thus, nothing in our past, nor any physical characteristic or personality trait, is what ultimately gets in the way of accepting God. They may affect the ease with which we make up our minds to decide for or against him, but even the single most powerful factor, the lack of an existing intimate relationship with God, does not bar us from making that decision.

Well, you may object, perhaps if nothing on our side seems to dictate whether we attain salvation, it comes from God instead. But is the ability to make that choice, to say 'Yes, I will submit to Your will.' something that God decides for us? Is it true to say that it is only possible for us to make that choice because God has enabled us to do so? In one sense, that is certainly true; God is the one who extended Himself to reach down to us. The only reason why that option is open to us is because He made it possible by the Son's sacrifice. But now that I've thought about it further, it seems that whether we take that option is entirely up to us, or rather, God leaves that final step up to us.

The way that God acts is a wonderful demonstration of how He values our free will. As I studied the Gospel of Matthew over the last few weeks as part of BSF, I came to realise why Jesus didn't just overpower us with majesty and beauty to compel us to adore him. He wants us to choose to love Him for how He is, to know His character, not to be swept up in pomp and glitter. Otherwise our relationship with Him might be like how we follow celebrities or royalty, but not really know who they are as people. The theophany of the Christian God was carefully measured not to overpower our free will, but to give those who would choose Him sufficient information to know what He desires of us as we walk with Him on this earth.

As Hebrews 1 : 1-2 puts it :

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 

This also implies that all that needs to be said and done, has been said and done from God's end. It is up to us to make a choice from then on out. 

If God was going to violate the sanctity of free will by choosing who would have the heart for Him, why go through all the trouble of that delicate balance between intervention and silence? If He is benevolent God who does not respect our agency, He would override everyone's free will and choose for all to know Him. The only factor that, in a sense, 'prevents' God from acting so drastically is our free will and His desire for that to remain intact. 

It thus seems to be the case that our free will is not limited by any factor apart from itself when it comes to choosing salvation. The only true root of rebellion that prevents an acceptance of the Gospel is a pride, conscious or unconscious, to stick to what we would rather be doing than what God designed us to do, not a person's childhood experiences, economic situation, cultural upbringing or position in society.

Now that we've looked at free will, what of the nature of God's sovereignty? One of the strongest passages for God's divine choice is Romans 9. Consider this section on Jacob and Esau :

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

- Romans 9 : 11-13

Later, Paul goes on to quote the Old Testament with the line : 

I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 

- Exodus 33 : 19b

That seems absurd from our perspective. How could God condemn Esau before he even sinned against God? I believe this is where the argument for time perspective comes in useful. 

God doesn't perceive things in the sequential flow of time. When He looks at our lives, He sees each moment happening as if it were the present. He sees our lives as a whole, and all our actions, thoughts and intentions at each moment, with each of our breaths and between each of our breaths. In other words, when God shows mercy towards Jacob, it is because He already knows the kind of person that Jacob is, and knows that despite Jacob's sinful nature, the heel-grasper will eventually come to seek the God of his fathers.

You might say that perhaps it is because of God's favour all the way along that Jacob grew up to be the sort of person who would love Him, while God's displeasure with Esau is what drove Esau away. This is based on the notion that our identities are shaped by societal factors and past experiences and all that. 

Let us contemplate another situation though, and perhaps it may help to clarify why God extends His mercy to some and not to others. Have you ever known someone who you thought you understood, only to have them do something you would think is completely out of their character? In another case, have you ever thought, of anyone - that person is not going to change, no matter how much kindness and consideration I show, he or she is going to remain the same nasty and selfish character that I've known all these years. If so, why bother? 

The fact of the matter is, we can never truly know another person's deeper nature. We must judge by the outward appearance, for that is all we can perceive - demonstrative action and audible or legible words. In truth, we sometimes do not even understand why we ourselves do what we do, or say what we say. If we don't even comprehend our own behaviour, how could we possibly extend that comprehension to another?

In contrast, God does know our innermost being. He knows if someone has it in them to make the 'out-of-character' decision to turn to Him, regardless of what they have done in the past, simply because He has already seen it happen. Therefore, He shows mercy towards that person by waiting for them to make that commitment. On the other end, He knows that for other people, no matter how much love and kindness He shows, no matter what wonders and blessings, or struggles and sufferings, they would never even toy with the idea of submission to the holy God. As a result, He unleashes His wrath upon them. This is why He could choose to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and why He told Abraham that :

The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, 

I will spare the whole place for their sake.

- Genesis 18 : 26

Over the next few verses, Abraham pleads with God to lower that threshold down to ten righteous people, but even ten are not found. God's choice then, as it is now, is to extend mercy or pronounce judgement. He knows if it is pointless, or if it is worthwhile, or extend mercy just a little longer for the sake of those who will eventually come around to love Him. 

Admittedly, the nature of the human soul is perhaps only one of many factors that God understands that we do not. When God acts, He considers a host of things that no human mind could grasp. But the unknown that lies in each of us may serve as a relatively relatable starting point of comprehension about how God makes His decisions. And so, we arrive at the sovereignty of God, who in His omniscience, dispenses judgement with accuracy, for He is the only judge who understands everything about the convicted.

From our time-constrained perspective, this appears like God's choice. It seems that He takes the initiative to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, to send the deluge over the earth, or to patiently endure the offensive iniquities of man for sake of the final few who will enter into eternal joy. But from His perspective, He acts based on what we do not know, both the known unknown and the unknown unknown.

At the end of it all, I would say that God's grace is evident by His sacrificial act that provided an avenue for us to be reconciled to Him. His mercy is evident by the patience with which He endures the gross vices of humankind for the sake of the elect, who may not even know that they will come to love Him. Finally, our free will is preserved, to chose to be with or apart from Him, by the balance of His revelations and the fact that no attribute of ours is a definitive hindrance to our salvation. If we will but choose to turn to Him, we will be redeemed, and nothing has ultimate influence over that choice but our own wills.

A Short History of Radiant Society - Part 2

The Era of Expansion [1 - 267 AE]

Territorial Extension to the East

Soon after the Radiant began to build up their settlement, Alero directed them into a frenzied expansion. During this early period, the geographical reach of the Radiant grew at its greatest pace. Beginning with the settlement of the Elerian fields, the period ends with the founding of Cashiris. 

The fields existed on a lush plain, which extended to a beach of golden sand leading down to the waves of Coralsea. After building their homes and dividing up the land, a central hall was designated for Ceoves and his staunchest followers. Alero selected six of them to form a body of leadership, who would be known as the Council. With a diligent workforce and the aid of magic, food was never in short supply. Water was retrieved directly from the Casezin river, which watered the fields with nutrient rich fresh water from Mirrorsea. The buildings of this time were made from wood, obtained from the trees that used to grow on Elerian fields.

With the needs of the population easily met, attention was turned to the construction of Eleris, designed by Alero to be a defensible base for his growing civilisation. The Casezin originally cascaded down from Mirrorsea in a series of small falls, and erosion had caused the cliff face to recede westward, forming a concave in the wall of rock. Over the next decade, magic would be used to carve the cliffs, transferring rocks from the western cliff to build up a wall in the east. This was done to form a crater, with a single entrance to the Elerian fields in the east. While that was done, magic was also used to shape the channels for the water from Mirrorsea. From the year 25 AE on, the life giving water would cascade down in a series of six towering waterfalls; a defining characteristic of Eleris in the centuries to come.

As the enclosure of Eleris was approaching completion, Alero gathered an expedition to head to the mountains in the northwest, to prospect for metals and minerals. This team would eventually set up the mining settlement of Foshiris in 34 AE.

Eleris City began to grow properly after its enclosure, soon outpacing the temporary settlement on the fields. These buildings were carved from the stone of the cliffs themselves, and augmented with metals from Foshiris. The west quadrant of the city was designated as the religious and governmental district. Since it was closer to Foshiris, the smithies and industrial stores were built to the north. The south side of the city was the residential district, and also had restaurants and the first school of the Radiant. Food stores and stores for lumber were on the eastern end of the city, near the entrance to the Elerian fields.

There was a strong impulse to explore the unknown eastern reaches of Coralsea, and this was encouraged by Alero, at least during this early stage of the Radiant's growth. The east was regarded as territory that would pose no resistance. This was in contrast to the west, the exploration of which was viewed with skepticism since it would involve dealing with the supposedly 'inferior strains of humankind', who had not accepted Alero.

The eastern expeditions were far more successful than initially anticipated. The numerous islands of the Coralsea Archipelago offered more arable land in addition to the area of the Elerian fields, so colonies were soon founded to farm and harvest the rich bounty of the islands and surrounding sea. In the year 172 AE, the most centrally located colony was nominated as the central hub for the other eastern colonies, and named Alaris.

As the years rolled on, Alaris became more than just a centralised collection point for the production lines of the Coralsea Archipelago. It grew into a centre of research and discovery of the diverse biota of the reefs. The development of Alaris called for more supplies, and so a second mining settlement, Cashiris, was established in 185 AE in the eastern highlands by a branch of the team that founded Foshiris. The Cashiris mine was not naturally as mineral rich as Forshiris mine, but it provided enough, especially in terms of stone, which the Radiant were beginning to favour as their primary construction material.

Early Population Growth

While the territorial reach of the Radiant expanded, their population increased accordingly. There were 64 who made the fateful choice of committing to Alero, population rose slowly at first, and was centred in Eleris. Before the expeditions and colonisation of the Coralsea Archipelago from c. 90 to c. 130, population increased at an average rate of 3% a year, given the extremely long lives of humans, even those of the Fallen, during the Age of Light. Eleris first reached a population of 600 in 78AE. Following the increased food supplies from the island plantations and kelp harvests, there was a population boom, where the total Radiant population increased at an average of 7% a year from the year 115 to 140. The population of Eleris first exceeded 10,000 individuals in the year 136 AE. At the end of the colonisation population boom, Eleris had a population of just under 14,000 individuals, driven both by birth rates in Eleris itself and immigration from other settlements. The total population, mostly dispersed to the east, was close to 17,000.

The rapidly rising population, while not actually coming close to to exhausting the supplies that magic enhanced agriculture could produce, was certainly alarming for the Council, who feared difficulties in administration and organisation. As a result, in 140 AE, they implemented population control measures, which legally limited a married couple henceforth to a maximum of 6 children, with at least 12 years in between each child. Among the justifications given for their invasive policy were optimisation and devoted care for each child during their formative years, strain on educational systems, and on increasing competition for employment.

The sentiment of the Council's Six-Child-Decree, as it came to be known, was readily identified with by most of the Radiant people. Complaining about the crowds of the cities was almost a daily affair, and the older generations amongst them lamented the loss of the 'early sense of unity', as it became impossible to know and keep updated with all the lives of the 'unending multitude of faces'.

Yet, there were those who would not comply, citing the large immediate families of the founding generation. The largest of the founding families had 38 children from the union of Teoves and Lesuves while Lesuves had remained in her childbearing years; 21 sons and 17 daughters. The phases of life were also stretched in step with the long early lifespans during the Age of Light. Of the 9 centuries or so of life allotted to the Fallen, a woman was in her maternal years, on average, between the ages of 40 to 120. Derogatorily termed the 'Breeders', the minority who vehemently disagreed with the Council's decision were forced to live out in the smaller settlements of the Radiant. Away from the crowded cities, their 'unrestrained fertility [would] not compromise the comfort of the cities' and would instead 'aid the development of the wilder settlements'. Thus, the later Radiant cultural attitude of disdain towards children and childbearing had its first slender beginnings in the early Council's population control measures.

Soon after its official founding and designation as the centre of the east, Alaris quickly became the second large population node, although it was still far smaller than the senior city by numbers. Alaris's population was augmented due to immigration from the colonies on the other Coralsea islands. In 172 AE, Alaris had a population of about 2,500, while Eleris had a population of 18,500. By 175 AE, the population of Alaris had risen to 4,100, but Eleris had a significantly lower growth rate, having reached 18,800 inhabitants. The other colonies were much smaller than the two cities, having an average of about 150 inhabitants. As a whole, the population of the Radiant had reached about 24,000 in the year 175 AE.

From then on, the rate of population increase was eventually tamed, though in terms of absolute numbers, the population of the Radiant would continue increase for many centuries to come.