Photo from a recent trip: Dublin at night, 20240405. This article from my PhD originally published 20130107 with slight reformat for 20240518 and an entry on academic.edu
Sovereignty
Approach Definition
FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium.
20240518: Note
John Calvin (1539)(1998) writes humanity
has nothing on its own, but depends totally on God.[1] God bestows on humanity what he wills.[2] Arthur Pink (1968) defines God’s sovereignty
as meaning that God is the almighty, the possessor of all power in heaven and
earth, and no one can defeat his counsels.[3] Norman Geisler explains the Bible teaches
that God is in control of the entire universe, including human events.[4] According to Jay Green (1971), in the
‘Forward’ of his book Five Points of Calvinism, many scholars within
Christian theism, in particular those from Reformed[5]
and Calvinist[6]
positions, reason that God has sovereign control over his creation, and God’s
ultimate plan is being accomplished throughout.[7] Green explains that Calvinists do not
necessarily see themselves as followers of John Calvin.[8] They do recognize Calvin as a great exegete
and one who systemized Scripture, and a vast number of the doctrines that came
from Calvin’s work are within the system known as Calvinism.[9] Calvinist Millard J. Erickson writes that
sovereignty is a major tenent within Calvinism as God is considered the Lord of
all things, and is free to do as he wills.[10] Jonathan Edwards (1729)(2006) writes that God
has the power to bestow upon anyone of his creatures good, evil, or
indifference for the greater good.[11] This sovereign control is accepted despite
the obvious problem of evil occurring in God’s creation.[12] Attempts to harmonize strong concepts of
God’s divine control over his creation, with the apparent corrupt nature of
what he has made in regard to the problem of evil, will be described within
this thesis as sovereignty theodicy.[13]
David Ray Griffin vigorously challenges
Calvinistic notions of sovereignty in regard to theodicy.[14] Griffin claims that God cannot be shown to be
perfectly moral for three reasons.[15] One, God cannot be understood to be morally
perfect because God is an alleged deity and his morality cannot be
demonstrated.[16] Two, since with a Calvininstic view God wills
all things, including evil acts, God must be immoral.[17] Three, since Calvinists believe that God
bases all things on eternal decisions, God is not truly free and is therefore
amoral.[18] The Calvinist could reply to
Griffin with the words of Calvin himself in The Bondage and Liberation of
the Will, that God is moral and as evil human actions occur God is willing
a good thing and the sinner another.[19] This type of explanation needs to be
presented in a logical and reasonable way,[20]
and a central goal of this Chapter is to present a sovereignty theodicy that is
philosophically reasonable.[21]
Pinnock explains that there is a tension in
the Biblical text between God determining things and human freedom.[22] Contrary to strongly Calvinistic or
sovereignty orientated approaches,[23]
there is within the Bible the idea that God has the power to create any
possible universe, including ones with significantly free creatures.[24] Such a universe would ultimately be under the
sovereign control of God, but this does not mean that everything occurring is
according to God’s intentions.[25] Pinnock states that God did not create a
world where he determines every detail,[26]
and therefore the Biblical idea of God’s sovereignty is not as deterministic as
the Calvinistic concept. Pinnock’s idea
is similar to Plantinga’s free will philosophy discussed in the previous
Chapter,[27] the conclusion being that if God creates a world with significantly
free creatures, the creatures will eventually commit wrong actions.[28]
John
Sanders explains that general sovereignty is a concept in contrast to a
Calvinistic specific sovereignty[29]
that has God allowing general structures to be set up by which human
significant freedom and resulting choices allows persons to input on how things
turn out.[30] With general sovereignty,
God takes risks in governing the world,[31]
but he does not take risks with the concept of specific sovereignty.[32] Sanders deduces here that when God wants to
bring about human acts within the general sovereignty framework he persuades
people, whereas Sanders views specific sovereignty as using hard determinism to
force people to commit acts.[33] Bruce Reichenbach (1986) explains that the
sovereign cannot compel his subjects to freely follow him.[34] This understanding would be held by Feinberg,[35]
and in general terms, accepted by most scholars that hold to theistic
compatibilism within a Reformed
tradition.[36]
Providence
Oliver Boulnois (2002) defines providence
as the manner by which God governs the world.[37] In other words, providence would be the
method that God uses to rule his creation in his sovereignty.[38] It could be understood that providence would
be the method by which God has sovereign control over his creation,[39]
and as Calvin notes, God’s providence has him work through persons.[40] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (1990) explains that
through God’s providence the world is dependent, [41] for
if God did not maintain it, it would cease to exist.[42] In Law of Nature, Edwards (1731-1733)(2006) explains that providence is
the means by which God governs the world as the supreme judge of the universe.[43] Reichenbach notes that providence is how God
guides and cares for his creation.[44] He further reasons that God on one hand
possesses wisdom in order to direct his creation within his plans, and on the
other hand has the power by which he attempts to implement his plans.[45] Reichenbach deduces that God’s providential
plans allow for significant human freedom and choices to occur.[46]
Within ‘The Doctrine of Creation’ in Church Dogmatics, Volume III, Karl Barth
defines God’s providence as dealing with the history of created beings, in the
sense that in every way through this entire span of time, this providence takes
place under the care of God the creator.[47] This includes those that are in Christ in the
covenant between God and humanity.[48] It is God’s fatherly Lordship over the entire
world.[49] Natural events that take
place are very personal for God.[50] God’s providence includes the ‘superior
dealings of the Creator with his creation, the wisdom, omnipotence and goodness
with which He maintains and governs in time this distinct reality according to
the council of his own will.’[51] God knows all things appropriately and
therefore acts in a proper way in relation to each and every creature.[52] In the act of creation, God associates himself with his creature as the
‘Lord of its history’[53] and acts in the appropriate manner.[54] Both the creator and creation possess types
of freedom,[55]
and this does not simply leave God’s creatures with a type of freedom[56]
but causes the creature to share in the divine glory and the opportunity to
serve God.[57] God can provide his human creation with
protection and guardianship along with human purpose and joy.[58] Schelling, although not noted as a Christian
theologian, within Of Human Freedom states that all earthly creatures are dependent on
God.[59] If God ‘withdrew his power
for an instant, man would cease to be.’[60] There exists ‘nothing before or outside of
God.’[61] Shedd explains that God’s
work of providence demonstrates he is the ‘most holy,’ ‘wise’ and ‘powerful’ as
he governs his creatures and their actions.[62] God works in the material universe with its
nature and laws.[63] Phillips explains that a Reformed view is that
God has the freedom to act as he wants.[64] This would be God’s sovereign providence, but
Hume is skeptical of this concept.[65] People throughout the world view certain evils,
which may be rectified in other regions of the world or in the future, and understand
these good events as being connected to general laws and the existence of a
good deity.[66] Hume suggests that these are superstitions,[67] and
questions whether in many cases a ‘cause can be known but from its known
effects?’[68] The idea is then presented
that if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world without
suffering and wickedness.[69]
Sanders writes that the Calvinist view on
providence is meticulous providence that assumes nothing can stymie God’s will,
and that God is in control of every detail.[70] Compatibilists deny meticulous providence
prohibits significant human free will,[71]
but Sanders, as an incompatibilist, rejects the compatibilist argument
concerning providence.[72] He instead suggests that a risk model of
providence is a better idea.[73] Within the risk model, God does not control
everything that happens, but controls many things.[74] God alone is responsible for completing his
divine plans and these will be completed in a general sense, but that does not
mean every specific event is within his plans.[75] Sander’s risk model is logical and well worth
considering, but I question if there is a difficulty with the fact that he
states God controls some things and not others.[76] If God’s control of all things in a
Calvinistic/Reformed model is rejected because it would force people to do
things, according to Sanders,[77]
then how can God control some things?[78] Does God not influence significant human
freedom at some specific points in time in order to bring about his ultimate
plans, such as saving rebellious persons?
If God influences significant human freedom at some points in time in
order to guarantee that his ultimate plans occur, such as a culminated Kingdom,
is this not in the end a form of compatibilism?[79]
BARTH, KARL
(1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of the Word of God: Volume 1,
Part One, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold
Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.
BARTH, KARL
(1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The
Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3.
Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh,
T. and T. Clark.
BARTH, KARL
(1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The
Doctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half -Volume, Translated by J.W. Edwards,
Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.
BERKOUWER, G.C.
(1962) Man: The Image of God, Grand
Rapids, W.M.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
BOULNOIS,
OLIVIER (2002) ‘The Concept of God After Theodicy’, in Communio, Volume 29, Number 3, pp. 444-468. Washington, Communio.
CALVIN, JOHN
(1539)(1998) The Institutes of the
Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids,
The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.
CALVIN, JOHN
(1539)(1998) The Institutes of the
Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids,
The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.
CALVIN, JOHN
(1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation
of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
EDWARDS,
JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God,
New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.
EDWARDS,
JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature,
New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.
EDWARDS,
JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will,
Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.
ERICKSON,
MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology,
Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FEINBERG,
JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil,
Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing
House.
FEINBERG,
JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John
S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.
FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium.
FRAME, JOHN M.
(2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R
Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
GEISLER, NORMAN
L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion,
Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
GEISLER, NORMAN
L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand
Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
GEISLER, NORMAN
L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will,
Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
GEISLER, NORMAN
L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology,
Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
GEISLER, NORMAN,
L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker
Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
GREEN, JAY
(1971) Five Points of Calvinism,
‘Forward’, Grand Rapids, Sovereign Grace Publishers.
GRENZ, STANLEY
J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING
(1999) Pocket Dictionary of
Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
GRIFFIN, DAVID
RAY (1976) God, Power, and Evil,
Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
HUGHES, PHILIP,
EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The
Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
HUME, DAVID
(1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap
(eds.), A Modern Introduction To
Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
HUME, DAVID
(1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media
LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.
KREEFT, PETER
AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of
Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
PINK, ARTHUR W.
(1968) The Sovereignty of God, London, The Banner of Truth Trust.
PINNOCK, CLARK
(1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity
Press.
REICHENBACH,
BRUCE (1986) Predestination and Free Will,
Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
SANDERS, JOHN
(2003) ‘Open Theism: A Radical Revision or Minuscule Modification of
Arminianism?’, in Wesleyan Theological Journal, Volume 38, Number 2, Fall, pp.
69-102. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury
College.
SCHELLING,
F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of Human
Freedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company,
Chicago.
SHEDD, WILLIAM
G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology,
Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson
Publishers.
SHEDD, WILLIAM
G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology,
Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson
Publishers.
[1] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 1:
2).
[2] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 1:
2).
[3] Pink (1968: 20).
[4] Geisler (1986: 63).
[5] Jay Green explains that Reformed theology
was not attempting to replace previous Christian theology, but instead was
clarifying the Biblical doctrines of the Church Fathers and the Scriptures. Green (1971: 7). The Reformed theological movement went from
the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries and was a break from Roman Catholic
leadership and teaching. Divine
sovereignty was an important emphasis of this movement. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 101).
[6] Calvinism is a system which attempts to
use Scripture to understand God’s divine theological plan for the ages. Green
(1971: 7). This system stems from the
work of John Calvin (1509-1564). Grenz,
Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 23).
[7] Green (1971: 7).
[8] Green (1971: ii).
[9] Green (1971: ii).
[10] Erickson (1994: 915).
[11] Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).
[12] Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).
[13] Feinberg (1994: 124-143).
[14] Griffin (1976: 116-130).
[15] Griffin (1976: 130).
[16] Griffin (1976: 130).
[17] Griffin (1976: 130).
[18] Griffin (1976: 130).
[19] Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).
[22] Pinnock (1986: 143).
[24] Pinnock (1986: 145).
[25] Pinnock (1986: 145).
[28] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).
[29] Sanders (1998: 212).
[30] Sanders (1998: 213).
[32] Sanders (1998: 213-214).
[33] Sanders (1998: 214).
[34] Reichenbach (1986: 105).
[35] Feinberg, would
deny that God would force persons to commit acts, instead it is God’s sovereign
plan that certain unconstrained actions should occur. Feinberg (2001: 637).
[36] Feinberg (2001: 637). Frame (2002: 153). Berkouwer (1962: 333). Calvin (1543)(1996:
68).
[37] Boulnois (2002: 444).
[38] Boulnois (2002: 444). God uses his providence as he ‘transcends
temporal categories.’ Kreeft and Tacelli
(1994: 108).
[43] Edwards (1731-1733)(2006: 553).
[44] Reichenbach (1986: 115).
[45] Reichenbach (1986: 115).
[46] Reichenbach (1986: 118).
[49] Barth (1932-1968:
28). God’s providence demonstrates
‘preservation and government.’ Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 527 Volume 1).
[55] Barth (1932-1968:
12). The human being has freedom, but
participates within the life of God. Schelling
(1845)(1936: 11). G.C. Berkouwer reasons
that God wants a free man, not a mechanical tool or creature than can be
maneuvered as the Almighty sees fit. Berkouwer
(1962: 333). I reason human freedom always operates within
the framework of God’s sovereignty and providence.
[56] God governs and
maintains the creation, in order that it exists by means of its own ‘inherent
properties and laws.’ Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 528 Volume 1).
[60] Schelling
(1845)(1936: 11). Schelling is noted
within the ‘Introduction’ to believe in a divine personality and denied that
God’s personality was incomprehensible.
Schelling did reason wisdom could be found in God. Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxv).
[70] Sanders (1998: 212). Frame would agree as God is thought to
‘direct the entire universe.’ Frame (2002: 274).
[71] Frame explains
that the freedom is not libertarian, but persons make significantly free
choices within divine causation. Frame
(2002: 153).
[72] Sanders (1998: 212).
[73] Sanders (1998: 215).
[74] Sanders (1998: 215).
[75] Sanders (1998: 215-217).
[76] Sanders (1998: 215).
[77] Sanders (1998: 212). The concept of God forcing and/or
coercing persons to commit actions would
be denied by many within Reformed theology.
Frame (2002: 153). Berkouwer
(1962: 333). Calvin (1543)(1996:
68).
[78] Would God only
control the most vital events that must occur in order for his Kingdom to
culminate? If so, what happens to
concepts of incompatibilistic free will in these cases?
[79] God can interject in human affairs and
influence human decisions.
 |
| Cliffs+Google Images |
The lead photo from the original 20130107 article posting. Cliffs, possibly British Isles
[71] Frame explains that the freedom is not libertarian, but persons make significantly free choices within divine causation.
Excellent point, I agree...
Incompatibilism is from my research often viewed synonymously with libertarian free will. In other words, the view is that any significant, libertarian, human freedom is incompatible with God (or anything) significantly causing human thoughts, desires, will, acts and actions.
In contrast, compatibilism, my version coined limited free will, is a view that, as God is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; God therefore must logically cause and will all things as the primary cause. This is true whether God causes something directly or allows it more so indirectly. Human nature, consciousness, thoughts, desires, will, acts and actions are a secondary cause in what humanly occurs. This human chain of limited free will has significant compatibilist freedom when it is not forced or coerced by the primary cause (God) (or anything) or any other secondary cause (human, angelic and demonic beings as examples). If a human being within human nature is forced in thoughts, desires, will, acts and actions, this is not compatibilism or soft determinism, but is rather hard determinism (sometimes called determinism). In other words, significant human freedom only exists when the secondary cause can significantly embrace what is caused by the primary cause.
