earlier this year i started an on-going series called “questions” in an attempt to look at some of the various things within our ecclesial patterns that i was struggling with or wanting to question… well, lately i’ve been having some theological questions that i’d like to throw around and shove into the same series. so come along, grab a cup of coffee and join me in this conversation if you would.
God’s sovereignty has been on my mind a lot lately, and not in a questioning sort of way but rather seeking to understand the extent, or the scope of it. I think that how one lands on the sovereignty of God completely affects their understanding of his character, his will and his very being. So, in my investigations I’ve found myself listening to a lot of John Piper’s seminars and messages from various conferences because of he heavily he lands on the issue of God’s soveriegnty. (If you’re going to start somewhere—start with the most extreme view right?)
Pipers position in a nutshell (which isn’t completely fair because it misses the nuances) is that God is 100% completely sovereign and in that sovereignty he knows exactly every single thing that you will decide from the moment you were born… He takes this a step further by saying that all of your decisions are not really decisions at all because they are God’s will for your life—therefore, no matter what you do you are constantly in God’s will. Meaning that even when you sin, you are in God’s will. (I have heard Piper say this on 2 separate occasions—the Desiring God conference podcasts and Reform and Resurge conference podcasts.) Piper then goes further to say that when we sin God is furious at us and his anger and wrath are pummelled down upon us… But why would God express his wrath at sin when it is ultimately in his will? If by sinning we are in God’s will—we are doing what God wants—then why would he be angry? It makes God sound as if he has Dissociative Identity Disorder… are we worshipping a crazy God? If anything I would think that this position give us license to sin…
Ultimately, I wonder that if in God’s sovereignty he has the ability to know all the decisions that I will make, then can I surprise God in any way? And if not, then can I really ever disappoint God? (Is disappointment dependent upon surprise?)
What then is a healthy view of sovereignty? By going to the extreme you have these sorts of problems/issues… and by going soft on God’s sovereignty we fall in the land of an incompetent God that doesn’t really know anything… so where’s the balance? What is the scope of God’s sovereignty? Are we diminishing God’s sovereignty when we don’t talk about it in a 100% sort of way… or are we diminishing it by talking about it in a 100% sort of way?
Related posts:
- questions: an intro
- questions of the emerging church
- getting behind the questions for the candidates
- questions: re-thinking the focus of atonement theology. (pt. 3)
- questions: relationships—inside
I’m porbably going to sound stupid, but…
I believe God to be outside of time.
I believe that God created the earth with natural laws that govern the earth and everything inside of it, and I also believe that He does know everything that is going to happen, but does not do anything to change what’s going to happen.
The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, I believe to be God inside of time; the counselor. The Holy Spirit does not interfere with the things that happen, but rather is guiding us to do God’s will.
However, I do think it possible to do things outside of God’s will, just as it would have been possible for me to do something that one of parents told me not to do, when I was younger. But, just as my parents were teaching me to be acceptable, by cultural standards, doing things outside of their will did not prevent me from accompishing what they wanted, in the end; it merely helped me to learn.
This may not be completely theologically correct. So far I haven’t found anything to prove it wrong… but someone who reads this may very well do just that.
Jake: You don’t sound stupid
Theologically, I think that the preterist position that I hold (and that is growing in leaps and bounds in the past 10 years) offers some unique insight to the idea of pissing off God: it can’t be done.
All that is sinful would seem to have made God mad. The definition of sin, in my mind, is the idea of someone violating the Laws that God has presented. Yet from my perspective on Biblical reconciliation, through the baptism of blood by Jesus, the definition of sin to me has changed completely compared to what the Jews and pre-Resurrection Christians had to deal with. Jesus reconciled men with God through his life, death and resurrection. That reconciliation ended the old Mosaic Convenant, which also ended the old Law, replaced by the law that Jesus brought in replacement: love God, love others. The Mosaic Law was overkill, but Jesus made it complete and simple.
For me, it is now obvious that loving God and loving others is what makes God happy, but since Jesus won over sin for all, I don’t think we can anger God any longer. Eschatologically, I think this is a strongly debatable and obvious aspect of the New Covenant (and Kingdom living), where man doesn’t have to feel ashamed or afraid of God — as Adam and Eve were before the Fall. It changes the Bible completely, too, since you get to see God’s chosen people and the Wrath that He had, until Jesus left us with the beautiful and reconciled Kingdom of God we have today.
I’ve noticed more dispensational futurist pastors (including one I serve and congregate with regularly) who have been moving away from the pure dispensational tact of fear, wrath, judgment and anger of God the Father, to the love, freedom, joy and reconciliation of Jesus the Lord.
I appreciate Piper’s ministry, but I have major problems with his theology of fatalism – which is, in essence, what he is saying. It sounds very high minded and reverent, but it also sounds very Muslim – at least to the extent that every little thing that we do is seen as mechanically ordained by a sovereign God. I see a wideness in the will of God. This is where our biblical theology becomes important. Presuppositionally, we believe that God has revealed himself to us by His Word(s). He has shown us what his will is – and it is much more broad than we would sometimes make it. Who does God want me to marry? A godly woman. What occupation does God want me to have? Worship, proclaim, and love. Where does God want me to live? You are a citizen of heaven. We typically use providence more as an excuse than anything else (It is not God’s will that we continue to date). I think that one of the benefits of God’s universal grace is the ability to make wise and godly decisions. There is a reason why God chose to reveal himself in a whole chunk of literature that we have come to call “wisdom literature.”
I think that one of the mistakes that many Calvinists make is making the message of God’s word overly personal instead of communal. In other words we see predestination language in terms of my personal salvation instead of understanding it in terms of God’s sovereign purpose for the people of God. God does work his sovereign will in history. He does what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants. Sometimes he overwhelms individuals with his sovereignty, but those are on rare occasions. Typically, I believe, he is working sovereignly through his people as a community.
Great stuff Monts and Rags. I wonder if this position has some strong Hellenistic strongholds. You never know if the gods or the fates were controlling the humans, but the humans rarely had say into the “larger purposes for their lives”. It was usually always individual fates for individual humans.
Perhaps we’ve screened out some of the Jewish Covenantal motif of “predestination”? The God of the Covenant has decided that His People will look like Jesus (Romans 8.9). Don’t know if that helps, but that’s the way I’m currently making sense of it.
just to add another thought… I think the reason why we play in the extremes of Calvinism and open theism is because we have a very difficult time living in the tension. Could this be an affect of modernism? (I don’t say this in a derogatory way.) we are unable to live in and deal with the tension and uncertainty that a position in the middle requires.
I agree with you rags that calvinism seems to be “hyper-individualistic” in the sense that man (more specifically mans depravity) is placed at the center of the conversation, but is this an epidemic that runs through Reformed thought as well? (I’m speaking of reformed thought in the way that Barth did—Reformed thought came before Calvinism: Calvinism “perverted” Reformed theology)
been following your blog for a while. great job. this is a great question. you should check out the book “Chosen but Free” by norm geisler. He brings in the whole middle ground idea. definitely worth reading if you are studying the topic.
Norman Geisler… haven’t heard that name for a while! Thanks for the book idea, I’ll have to check that out sometime!