God is sovereign right? Right.
No matter what sort of theology you like, you will at least pay lip service to the notion that God is sovereign. We may not all agree on what sovereignty entails, but we can all agree that whatever it is, God -is- it.
Which leads me to discuss two ways that God's sovereignty might be understood. There are (no doubt) many ways that God's sovereignty could be understood, but I am only going to consider two ways, and these but briefly.
 he first way is to regard the sovereignty of God in this way - He is an omnipotent Dictator. If our understanding of God's sovereignty is thus, we regard God as making everything that happens, happen. He is sovereign in that everything that happens in all of creation does so because God directly and divinely wills it to happen in precisely the way it eventually happens. Every "action" that takes place throughout all of creation looks to God Almighty for its direct and immediate cause. Free will, in this system is an illusion, for every thought, motive, or action is actually controlled by the sovereignty of God. In other words, this understanding of sovereignty emphasizes God's control over creation.
Notwithstanding, should we understand God's sovereignty as being primarily a matter of His being in direct and constant control of all that happens in creation, we should have an easy answer for questions about predestination and election. Surely we reason, if God's sovereignty is defined according to an universal automatonic presumption - that is, if God's sovereignty can be described in terms of God determining every action in creation, such that every action is caused directly by God Himself - then we need understand the doctrines of election and predestination as being the natural result of God's sovereignty - since God causes everything.
The most significant problem with that model is perhaps philosophical.
If God causes me to follow Christ, can I (by any means) take credit for being drawn thus? If my drawing was not according to my own choice or merit, but according to God's sovereignty (as defined by his controlling all things) then my election is the result of God sovereign control over me, since I can in no way resist God's will.
But if we are going to premise our election on this kind of sovereignty, we ought to be consistent, because if the sovereignty of God means that God causes all things, then every time I disobey God, it is only because God has willed that I do so, and I cannot resist God's will.
That is where the philosophy comes in.
How can I be held guilty for obeying God's sovereign decree that I disobey Him? The best answer to this philosophical conundrum is that God can do whatever He wants, because He is God after all, and that no matter how unjust it appears on the surface, we ultimately lack a sufficient moral perspective to judge God for doing it this way. I consider that particular defense on par with the playground defense of "I say it works this way, nyah, nyah!"
he other take I want to mention understands God's sovereignty in this way: That while God was certainly the first, direct cause of everything in creation, He nevertheless gave authority to Adam over the earth and over created, and in so doing allowance was made in God's sovereignty for His will to be be done indirect through man - and through providential causality. God was still perfectly sovereign, nothing in all of creation could happen unless the Lord allowed it to happen - but God unlike the first six days, where God was dictating everything that happened in all of creation, on the seventh day God rested - His sovereign control over all of creation was no longer characterized primarily by direct intervention, but now was carried out through Adam, the primary mediator between God and creation.
Only Adam fell.
We want to be fair here too. In our first scenario we were basically saying that Adam sinned as a result of God determining beforehand to impose upon Adam's will in some way so as to directly cause Adam to perform a sinful deed which was by definition, quite contrary to the perfect nature God had created Adam with. In our second scenario, we are saying that God providentially ordained that Adam would sin and when Adam did, it God was not behind him pulling the strings.
The difference is not as simple as saying "directly" for one and "indirectly/providentially" for the other - though that might seem to be all we are doing. So in all fairness we ought to distinguish with greater clarity what we are saying.
In the second scenario, God designed Adam with a built in vulnerability - he was not impervious to temptation and sin. This was not a corruption, or a design flaw, it was by perfectly in accord with God's sovereign will and his express design. Adam would fall.
We pause at this point to remind the reader that even though God created Adam as being susceptible to sin - yet God did not force Adam to sin. We might argue that it was wrong for God to make Adam this way - but that is the argument of the pot makes with the potter, "Why have you made me thus?" Setting aside the image of the pot and the potter, we reason could just as easily word it this way, "How can God hold a man accountable for doing something that God could have prevented by designing Adam to be impervious to temptation and sin?"
I hope when we state it that way, it is a little more clear. God is not to be blamed for Adam's sin, even if God designed Adam in such a way that Adam would sin. Adam was given authority on earth by God, and he used that authority (freedom) to rebel against God, and God cannot be blamed for Adam's abuse of authority just because God gave Adam the authority.
God's sovereignty in the second model therefore, is primarily described by (but not limited to) direct intervention - that is, God was the cause of all things prior to giving Adam authority over creation, and from that time on, at least with respect to the visible creation, God's sovereignty was primarily providential and indirect - all things that happened were "allowed" to happen by God, but God was sovereign in his providential rule as opposed to by directly intervening on behalf of every action in the universe.
This second model answers the question of election and predestination by saying that God calls His children to himself providentially, in exactly the same way God providentially allowed Adam to fall, that is, God ordained it before hand, and creation responded in exact accordance with that ordination, providentially. God in this model allows the authority given to Adam to run its course, but God's will is not thwarted by this corrupted authority, in fact God uses it as a potter uses clay, to bring about his will no matter what. All things, in this model, work together in bringing about God's will, in spite of the corruption. The grandest difference between the two models, I suppose is that the latter doesn't make God the direct cause of sin, but makes man and only man, responsible for sin.
The second model does not suggest that God doesn't or cannot directly intervene in a thing - but rather it doesn't require God to do so with regards to election, predestination, and sin.
The former method, I suppose, more closely resembles the doctrine known as double predestination. Double predestination simply means that God not only predestined some people to go to heaven, but he simultaneously predestines the rest to go to hell. The rational behind this, I believe boils down to a false dichotomy, but those who buy into it typically exalt God's sovereignty one notch too far.
The latter method, I suppose, would lead one to conclude that while God ordained Adam's fall (and by extension: the whole human race) yet it was not done in such a way as to make God culpable for Adam's sin, and consequently, Adam's damnation. We reason that if God created an innocent race, even if he created them prone to fall, that whatever condemnation they themselves earn is fitting - and that God would not be unjust even if created a billion universes, and in each such universe He allowed the whole of the human race therein to perish in its sin - yet God could not be held to blame for even one soul that finds itself condemned - because each one who rebels does so to the damning of their own free will, to the damning of their own soul. Given therefore that in this scenario God doesn't ordain men to hell, but rather allows men to sin, and by their sin purchase hell - in this model we have more of a single predestination - where by God saves some sinners from His own wrath which they themselves have earned by their own rebellion - yet in spite of their rebellion God elects beforehand to be merciful to some and draws them to Himself and saves them.
The former I suppose has God as more of a Dictator, directing every action, and being thereby culpable for all actions in all creation, while the latter paints God as more of a Governor who allows everything that happens to happen, and disallows everything that does not come to pass according to his own sovereign will - but has given freedom/authority to mankind over creation, such that God is no longer culpable for the decisions a man makes, although God (being sovereign) is not thwarted in achieving the purchase of the church - in spite of the fall, and in spite of sin, and rebellion, and corruption - God works in spite of all those things to save those whom He has determined to show mercy to.
Anyway, nothing terribly profound I suppose, but I was reading over at my friend Bryan's blog something about it, and thought I could comment on it here as well.Labels: Bryan's blog, predestination, Theology, Unconditional Election |
- 
- 
- 
