A Truly Sovereign God

Introduction

The debate over God’s divine providence is by no means a recent phenomenon. In fact, the issue was debated long before the time of James Arminius (1560-1609) or John Calvin (1509-1564). Great theologians such as Origen (185-254 AD), Augustine (354-430 AD) and others have similarly wrestled with this matter of God’s divine providence. In God’s Lesser Glory, author Bruce Ware analyzes and compares the deficiencies of open theism’s position on divine providence, which is loosely associated with Arminianism, with his own position on divine providence, which is aligned closely with traditional Calvinism. In The God Who Risks, author John Sanders does essentially the opposite. Citing instead his preference to the position of open theism or “relational theism” as he calls it, over against Ware’s theology of divine providence. Sadly, the books read like a “my God’s better than your God” exposé on the theology of divine providence. To begin with, let’s look at the basic arguments and the most compelling major points made by each author.

God’s Lesser Glory

Ware makes his argument from the position that God has exhaustive divine foreknowledge and governs the affairs of all his creation according to such knowledge. More specifically, “God’s omniscience encompasses comprehensive knowledge of the past, present and future.”[1] The future-knowledge aspect of this position is probably the most compelling of the many cogent positions of Ware’s argument. It is from this position that he can logically make his other important arguments. One such argument is God’s perfect wisdom. Ware contends that because God has exhaustive knowledge of the future, his actions and judgments are always according to his perfect will. Consequently, God’s promises can always be trusted because he knows the end from the beginning.

Additionally, Ware claims that his model makes it possible to look to God for divine guidance to live the Christian life. Because of exhaustive future knowledge, we can have confidence that God has a perfect plan for his creation. Ware writes, “If we wonder whether God knows for sure what he is doing, and if we doubt that his will and ways are always best, why should we trust him instead of simply following our own instincts, thoughts, and desires in charting our future?”[2]

Finally, Ware asserts that there is great comfort in knowing that God is in complete control of everything under his model of divine providence. Nothing can take God by surprise because he knows all future events. Nowhere is this aspect more important than when facing the tragic twists and turns that life can often take and which can often produce pain and suffering. With respect to this, Ware writes, “The message of the Bible is that suffering has meaning, God is in control over it and over all else, and so life can be lived by faith in the infinitely wise and powerful God.”[3]

The God Who Risks

Sanders argues for his model of divine providence from the position that God has exhaustive knowledge of the past and the present but not of the future. Instead, the future is open to both God and man and God has given man freedom to cooperate with him to bring about his perfect will. Naturally, by partnering, in a sense, with fallible humans, God risks not always getting what he wants. However, this model, according to Sanders, creates the only environment where there can be a true give-and-take relationship between Creator and his creatures. For example, with respect to Mary and Joseph and their role in the incarnation, Sanders writes, “God places his trust in them [Mary and Joseph], giving his consent to the risks involved. The incarnation does not come about through sheer overwhelming power but through the vulnerability of being genuinely dependent on some Jewish peasants.”[4] Consequently, Sanders prefers to use the title “Relational Theism” for his position as opposed to “Open Theism” as it is more commonly understood. This relationship aspect is also one of Sanders’ most compelling arguments for his position.

In addition, Sanders’ argues that this position is the only one that can truly support a healthy and dynamic life of prayer. Sanders makes the point that God genuinely seeks our prayers and input when he writes, “God considers others as having something significant to say. Because God desires a genuine relationship, he is open to his creatures, especially through prayer.”[5]

Finally, Sanders contends that his model is the only reasonable way to explain pain and suffering associated with what he calls gratuitous evil. According to Sanders, because the future is yet unknown to both God and man, some terrible things happen (i.e. murder, rape, etc.) that are unexpected and have no purpose. To explain his position Sanders writes, “When a two-month-old contracts a painful, incurable bone cancer that means suffering and death, it is pointless evil. The Holocaust is pointless evil.  The rape and dismemberment of a young girl is pointless evil…God does not have a specific purpose in mind for these occurrences.”[6] Consequently, according to Sanders, God can become a comforting partner in our pain and suffering as opposed to being its perceived source even if that source is considered a secondary cause. Having outlined the basic argument and compelling major points for each position, we can now evaluate some of the most significant similarities and differences between Ware, Sanders and my own position.

Comparative Analysis

An important theme that is shared by both authors is that God is omniscient and is therefore supremely capable of governing the affairs of his creation. Additionally, both authors acknowledge God’s transcendence and his immanence. God is not just some far-off, disinterested Being but instead, while certain aspects of God’s character are beyond our grasp, he is a God who draws near and is genuinely interested in a relationship with his creation. Finally, both authors agree that God is sovereign over his creation. These areas of commonality are necessarily general because within each of these areas of understanding, each author diverges in a pattern that supports their understanding of the character of God and how he deals with his creation.

With respect to God’s omniscience, I agree with Ware when he asserts, “God’s omniscience encompasses comprehensive knowledge of the past, present and future.”[7] As a consequence, God is fully trustworthy when it comes to fulfilling his promises. Sanders, on the other hand, understands omniscience differently when he writes, “Omniscience may be defined as knowing all there is to know such that God’s knowledge is coextensive with reality.”[8] This understanding necessarily excludes knowledge of the future since the future has not yet been realized. However, this understanding seriously undermines God’s ability to be faithful to his promises. Much, if not all, of the Christian life depends on the fulfillment of God’s promises. Some examples are:  God’s promise of the forgiveness of sins for those who believe in Christ and God’s promise of an eternal life with him, without pain, suffering or death for those who believe in Christ. Christian faith and hope sit firmly on the foundation of these and the rest of God’s promises. Faith and hope cannot help but be shaken if God were somehow not certain of all future events. For example, I seldom use the words “I promise” because they necessarily connote that I know the future and am certain that I can fulfill my promise. Obviously, this is not the case because I am limited in my knowledge of future events that may preclude me from keeping my promise. Consequently, if I fail to keep a promise, that would make me a liar. Similarly, if God failed to keep his promise, it would make him a liar. However, because God does not lie (1 Sam. 15:29) he must have exhaustive knowledge of all future events in order to faithfully keep the promises he makes.

With respect to God’s transcendence and immanence, Ware describes God’s immanence within the boundaries of his divine plan for his creation. This does not necessarily preclude a personal relationship with God but establishes a divine blueprint for that relationship. In Sanders’ model, God’s immanence is so elevated that God and his creation appear to be virtually equal. For example, Sanders writes, “Human faith and action make a difference to God in the fulfillment of his plans. In choosing to depend on human beings for some things, God takes the risk of being either delighted or disappointed in what transpires.”[9] He goes on to affirm with respect to prayer that, “Prayer has to do with that which brings the human and the divine factors into the fullest possible power-sharing effectiveness.”[10] Sanders assumes that Ware’s model of God’s divine plan overshadows God’s immanence in favor of his transcendence. This plan, or blueprint as it is often referred to in more pejorative terms, is often used to demonstrate that we are not free creatures but puppets on a string and God as the glorified puppeteer. Consequently, critics claim, the dynamic of a true relationship does not exist because God has already planned everything out for us. However, one must wonder, does that then mean that Jesus was not free but merely a puppet when he said he only did what pleased the Father (Jn. 8:29)? Certainly not! Ware writes, “True freedom, according to Jesus, is living life his way.”[11] What critics, including Sanders, fail to mention about God’s blueprint for our lives is that we don’t have a complete and detailed copy. Therefore the dynamics of our relationship with God is manifest in our attempt to ascertain God’s will generally and his will for our lives more specifically. This is especially important given the fact that we are called to follow Christ and his ways. We are called to be obedient to his teachings on how we should live. It only seems logical that if we are instructed to follow someone into territory that is unfamiliar to us (the future) that we should follow not just someone with a map but the Mapmaker himself!

Both authors agree that God is sovereign over his creation. However, their divergence on this matter stems from the type of sovereignty God employs—either general or specific sovereignty. Sanders claims that God employs general sovereignty over his creation thereby keeping intact human freedom of choice. In describing God’s general sovereignty Sanders writes, “…general sovereignty denies that each and every event has a specific divine intention. God may intensify his ongoing activity to bring about some particular event, but God’s normal way of operating is to allow the creatures significant freedom and, consequently, not to control everything.”[12] However, the problem with this position is immediately obvious when later Sanders writes, “General sovereignty allows for things to happen that are not part of God’s plan for our lives; it allows for pointless evil.”[13] Is this a God that we can put our faith in? A God who sympathetically stands by us but is nevertheless helpless to do anything because some events fall outside the scope of his sovereignty. This seems highly untenable for a God who created the entire universe! Somehow it seems like an attempt to give God a convenient alibi for someone in the midst of a crisis, but is it a true reflection of God’s character and sovereignty? I don’t believe it is. Instead, Ware’s position of specific sovereignty seems far more consistent with God’s overall character and behavior. When Jesus sends out the disciples as recorded in Matthew 10, he warns them of the persecution, suffering and possible death that awaits them. However, he reassures them of God’s control in all things when he says to them, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows (Matt. 10:28-31).” Sanders asserts that this text is not even talking about God’s sovereignty but that it is Jesus’ way of encouraging them that, “They are not to doubt God’s concern for them, even in the midst of such horrible experiences.”[14] Frankly, that’s a sad commentary on Sanders’ part. Certainly, Sanders’ understanding is part of the intent of this text but that’s not the whole story. Donald A. Hagner in his commentary on Matthew writes: “Two illustrations of the unrestricted attention of God to even the smallest things of life are now provided: the death of a sparrow and the very number of hairs on one’s head. The implication is not only that these things do not escape the notice of, ‘your Father,’ a term of intimacy and endearment, but that they too fall within the scope of his sovereign power and care.”[15] In short, what good is it to trust a God that is concerned about me but not in control? Instead these verses seem analogous to a kind of “spectrum text” as described by Ware as showing that while we may endure hardships, persecution and even death in this world, both big problems and small problems, life and death are all within God’s control. How else can the words of Jesus “Yet not one of them [sparrows] will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father (emphasis added)” be interpreted? God, by his specific sovereignty, uses events in our lives, even if they are tragic, to accomplish his perfect will. All events in our lives have profound meaning and purpose in the economy of God

            Although it is not the intent of this lesson, some of you might be wondering how God’s sovereignty affects our salvation. Without going into significant detail, there are two positions that correspond with our lesson: The Calvinist position and the Arminian position. Generally speaking, Calvinists subscribe to the theology that God elects/chooses in advance those that will be saved. Arminians subscribe to the theology that everyone has the opportunity to be saved based on their freedom to choose for themselves whether to accept God’s free gift of salvation, although not everyone will be saved because not everyone will accept that gift. There is sound biblical support for both views although there is substantially more support for the latter view as opposed to the former. Many have argued that the two views are usually at odds with one another. I find that to be wholly unnecessary. While I’m not one to be wishy-washy on biblical matters, I’d like to postulate the possibility that there is a middle path that respects both theological positions. If we assume, rightly so I believe, that God’s will is always accomplished, then is it unreasonable to believe that both positions are possible? For the most part, God allows people the freedom to choose the gift of salvation offered through Jesus Christ. However, in order for God’s will to be accomplished at all times, God specifically elects/chooses some to be saved. In this way, the biblical witness of both theological positions is preserved. Regardless of which position you choose, the only position that I believe is unbiblical is any position that advances the idea that God is somehow not in complete control of every possible outcome. There is no biblical support for that view.

Application

Pain and suffering can often distort our understanding of God. For example, we may assume that if God is fully in control of all events because he is fully aware of all past, present and future then God should be able to protect us from pain and suffering. The short answer is that God can protect us from pain and suffering but the correct answer is that God uses pain and suffering in our lives to bring about his perfect will.

Let me offer an example from my own life. When my oldest daughter was seven years old, she slipped and fell on the wet bathroom floor and broke her leg. X-rays revealed that she had a bone tumor in her leg that weakened the bone. Her doctor said that she would require surgery to remove the tumor and repair the bone. I agreed to the surgery that was prescribed but during the intervening weeks I prayed fervently that God would heal her so she would not have to go through the painful surgery and recovery. After four weeks, x-rays revealed that her condition had not changed and she would, in fact, have to go through with the surgery. The surgery was successful but I struggled (actually I was angry) for months thereafter wondering why God did not answer my prayers and protect my daughter from the painful surgery and recovery. Unfortunately, most people do not get answers to their “why” questions, but I did. About a year after the surgery, I was talking to my daughter about the things we are thankful for and I asked her if there was anything that she was particularly thankful for. She said that she was thankful that God was with her when she went through her surgery. Her words pierced my heart. Her faith grew out of that experience. Yet I could only see that in retrospect whereas God saw it in advance. As a result, he accomplished his perfect will, in both of us, through her pain and suffering. This is precisely what Ware acknowledges with his model. Sanders, on the other hand, could only affirm with this model that while God sympathetically stands by us during such times, he is nevertheless simply a bystander reacting to events that may or may not be part of his plan.

Both Ware and Sanders are clearly passionate about their view of God and his providence. While I don’t doubt Sanders’ sincerity, I find his model severely deficient and inconsistent with the overall understanding of God in scripture as a whole. However, I must confess that I am one of those identified by Sanders as waffling at times between believing that God is fully in control when my circumstances are agreeable and at times denying that he is in control of everything when I encounter struggles in my life. However, that comes from sheer ignorance of who God is and an unwillingness at times to accept that his will is perfect. What I have learned is that my relationship with God is not a relationship of convenience or comfort as is often the case between peers but one of honor and worship as between Creator and created. This has a profound influence on my ministry as well. My vocation often places me in peoples’ lives during times of change, trouble and stress. I have often talked with these people about the comfort of a relationship with a God that has everything under control even when it seems that everything is out of control. In a world that tries to pull us in every direction, people are desperately looking for an anchor—for something that won’t change. A God who does not change and who knows the beginning from the end can provide such an anchor. A God that is immutable (unchanging), wholly sovereign and in complete control of all things necessarily implies unity because all things are held together by him (Col 1:17) and fall under his sovereign control. And because God’s will does not change and is going in a specific direction, it is our obligation to seek that will not only individually but corporately as well. This is what has created the unity of the Church throughout the ages as J. I. Packer writes in his book Knowing God, “Thus it appears that the truth on which we must dwell in order to dispel this feeling that there is an unabridgeable gulf between the position of men in Bible times and our own, is the truth of God’s immutability.”[16] While having a relationship with a God that is more like an equal might sound romantic to some, I rather prefer to a God who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and who knows my life from beginning to end and has everything under control. I prefer A Truly Sovereign God!

---

[1] Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lesser Glory, (Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL, 2000), p. 99.

[2] Ware, God’s Lesser Glory, p. 177.

[3] Ibid., p. 216.

[4] John Sanders, The God Who Risks, (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1998), p. 93.

[5] Ibid., p. 53.

[6] Ibid., p. 262.

[7] Ware, God’s Lesser Glory, p. 99.

[8] Sanders, The God Who Risks, p. 194.

[9] Ibid., p. 53.

[10] Ibid., p. 54.

[11] Ware, God’s Lesser Glory, p. 186.

[12] Sanders, The God Who Risks, p. 214.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Sanders, The God Who Risks, p. 112.

[15] Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary, (Word Books, Dallas, TX, 1993), p. 286.

[16] J. I. Packer, Knowing God, (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1973), p. 68.