Sovereignty Approach Definition (PhD Edit)

To contact us Click HERE

Cliffs+Google Images

England-Fookes.com 

Germany+Google Images

SovereigntyApproach Definition

John Calvin (1539)(1998) writes humanityhas nothing on its own, but depends totally on God.[1]  God bestows on humanity what he wills.[2]  Arthur Pink (1968) defines God’s sovereigntyas meaning that God is the almighty, the possessor of all power in heaven andearth, and no one can defeat his counsels.[3]  Norman Geisler explains the Bible teachesthat 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 withinChristian theism, in particular those from Reformed[5]and Calvinist[6]positions, reason that God has sovereign control over his creation, and God’sultimate plan is being accomplished throughout.[7]  Green explains that Calvinists do notnecessarily see themselves as followers of John Calvin.[8]  They do recognize Calvin as a great exegeteand one who systemized Scripture, and a vast number of the doctrines that camefrom Calvin’s work are within the system known as Calvinism.[9]   Calvinist Millard J. Erickson writes thatsovereignty is a major tenent within Calvinism as God is considered the Lord ofall things, and is free to do as he wills.[10]  Jonathan Edwards (1729)(2006) writes that Godhas the power to bestow upon anyone of his creatures good, evil, orindifference for the greater good.[11]  This sovereign control is accepted despitethe obvious problem of evil occurring in God’s creation.[12]  Attempts to harmonize strong concepts ofGod’s divine control over his creation, with the apparent corrupt nature ofwhat he has made in regard to the problem of evil, will be described withinthis thesis as sovereignty theodicy.[13]
David Ray Griffin vigorously challengesCalvinistic notions of sovereignty in regard to theodicy.[14]  Griffin claims that God cannot be shown to beperfectly moral for three reasons.[15]  One, God cannot be understood to be morallyperfect because God is an alleged deity and his morality cannot bedemonstrated.[16]  Two, since with a Calvininstic view God willsall things, including evil acts, God must be immoral.[17]  Three, since Calvinists believe that Godbases all things on eternal decisions, God is not truly free and is thereforeamoral.[18]  The Calvinist could reply toGriffin with the words of Calvin himself in The Bondage and Liberation ofthe Will, that God is moral and as evil human actions occur God is willinga good thing and the sinner another.[19]  This type of explanation needs to bepresented in a logical and reasonable way,[20]and a central goal of this Chapter is to present a sovereignty theodicy that isphilosophically reasonable.[21]
Pinnock explains that there is a tension inthe Biblical text between God determining things and human freedom.[22]  Contrary to strongly Calvinistic orsovereignty orientated approaches,[23]there is within the Bible the idea that God has the power to create anypossible universe, including ones with significantly free creatures.[24]  Such a universe would ultimately be under thesovereign control of God, but this does not mean that everything occurring isaccording to God’s intentions.[25]  Pinnock states that God did not create aworld where he determines every detail,[26]and therefore the Biblical idea of God’s sovereignty is not as deterministic asthe Calvinistic concept.  Pinnock’s ideais similar to Plantinga’s free will philosophy discussed in the previousChapter,[27] the conclusion being that if God creates a world with significantlyfree creatures, the creatures will eventually commit wrong actions.[28]
JohnSanders explains that general sovereignty is a concept in contrast to aCalvinistic specific sovereignty[29]that has God allowing general structures to be set up by which humansignificant freedom and resulting choices allows persons to input on how thingsturn 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 tobring about human acts within the general sovereignty framework he persuadespeople, whereas Sanders views specific sovereignty as using hard determinism toforce people to commit acts.[33]   Bruce Reichenbach (1986) explains that thesovereign 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 theisticcompatibilism  within a Reformedtradition.[36] 
Providence
Oliver Boulnois (2002) defines providenceas the manner by which God governs the world.[37]  In other words, providence would be themethod that God uses to rule his creation in his sovereignty.[38]  It could be understood that providence wouldbe 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 thatthrough God’s providence the world is dependent, [41] forif God did not maintain it, it would cease to exist.[42]  In Law of Nature, Edwards  (1731-1733)(2006) explains that providence isthe means by which God governs the world as the supreme judge of the universe.[43]  Reichenbach notes that providence is how Godguides and cares for his creation.[44]  He further reasons that God on one handpossesses wisdom in order to direct his creation within his plans, and on theother hand has the power by which he attempts to implement his plans.[45]  Reichenbach deduces that God’s providentialplans allow for significant human freedom and choices to occur.[46]
Within ‘The Doctrine of Creation’ in Church Dogmatics, Volume III, Karl Barthdefines God’s providence as dealing with the history of created beings, in thesense that in every way through this entire span of time, this providence takesplace under the care of God the creator.[47]  This includes those that are in Christ in thecovenant between God and humanity.[48]  It is God’s fatherly Lordship over the entireworld.[49]  Natural events that takeplace are very personal for God.[50]  God’s providence includes the ‘superiordealings of the Creator with his creation, the wisdom, omnipotence and goodnesswith which He maintains and governs in time this distinct reality according tothe council of his own will.’[51]  God knows all things appropriately andtherefore 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 typesof 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 toserve God.[57]  God can provide his human creation withprotection and guardianship along with human purpose and joy.[58]   Schelling, although not noted as a Christiantheologian,  within Of Human Freedom states that all earthly creatures are dependent onGod.[59]  If God ‘withdrew his powerfor an instant, man would cease to be.’[60]  There exists ‘nothing before or outside ofGod.’[61]  Shedd explains that God’swork of providence demonstrates he is the ‘most holy,’ ‘wise’ and ‘powerful’ ashe governs his creatures and their actions.[62]  God works in the material universe with itsnature and laws.[63]  Phillips explains that a Reformed view is thatGod has the freedom to act as he wants.[64]  This would be God’s sovereign providence, butHume 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 understandthese good events as being connected to general laws and the existence of agood deity.[66]  Hume suggests that these are superstitions,[67] andquestions whether in many cases a ‘cause can be known but from its knowneffects?’[68]  The idea is then presentedthat if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world withoutsuffering and wickedness.[69]
Sanders writes that the Calvinist view onprovidence is meticulous providence that assumes nothing can stymie God’s will,and that God is in control of every detail.[70]  Compatibilists deny meticulous providenceprohibits significant human free will,[71]but Sanders, as an incompatibilist, rejects the compatibilist argumentconcerning providence.[72]  He instead suggests that a risk model ofprovidence is a better idea.[73]  Within the risk model, God does not controleverything that happens, but controls many things.[74]  God alone is responsible for completing hisdivine plans and these will be completed in a general sense, but that does notmean every specific event is within his plans.[75]  Sander’s risk model is logical and well worthconsidering, but I question if there is a difficulty with the fact that hestates God controls some things and not others.[76]  If God’s control of all things in aCalvinistic/Reformed model is rejected because it would force people to dothings, according to Sanders,[77]then how can God control some things?[78]  Does God not influence significant humanfreedom at some specific points in time in order to bring about his ultimateplans, such as saving rebellious persons? If God influences significant human freedom at some points in time inorder 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. HaroldKnight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 
BARTH, KARL(1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, TheDoctrine 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, TheDoctrine 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, GrandRapids, 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 theChristian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids,The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.
CALVIN, JOHN(1539)(1998) The Institutes of theChristian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids,The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.
CALVIN, JOHN(1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberationof 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 PublishingHouse. 
FEINBERG,JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, JohnS. 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, ThirdMillennium.  
FRAME, JOHN M.(2002) The Doctrine of God, P and RPublishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey. 
GEISLER, NORMANL. (1975) Philosophy of Religion,Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 
GEISLER, NORMANL. (1978) The Roots of Evil, GrandRapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 
GEISLER, NORMANL. (1986) Predestination and Free Will,Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 
GEISLER, NORMANL. (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 BakerEncyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 
GREEN, JAY(1971) Five Points of Calvinism,‘Forward’, Grand Rapids, Sovereign Grace Publishers. 
GRENZ, STANLEYJ., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary ofTheological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press. 
GRIFFIN, DAVIDRAY (1976) God, Power, and Evil,Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 
HUGHES, PHILIP,EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On TheEpistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans PublishingCompany. 
HUME, DAVID(1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap(eds.), A Modern Introduction ToPhilosophy, New York, The Free Press. 
HUME, DAVID(1779)(2004)  Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland MediaLLC, Lawrence, Kansas.  
KREEFT, PETERAND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook ofChristian 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, InterVarsityPress. 
REICHENBACH,BRUCE (1986) Predestination and Free Will,Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 
SANDERS, JOHN(2003) ‘Open Theism: A Radical Revision or Minuscule Modification ofArminianism?’,  in Wesleyan Theological Journal, Volume 38, Number 2, Fall, pp.69-102.  Wilmore, Kentucky, AsburyCollege. 
SCHELLING,F.W.J. (1845)(1936) Schelling, Of HumanFreedom, Translated by James Gutmann, The Open Court Publishing Company,Chicago. 
SHEDD, WILLIAMG.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas NelsonPublishers.   
SHEDD, WILLIAMG.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas NelsonPublishers.   

---

[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 theologywas not attempting to replace previous Christian theology, but instead wasclarifying the Biblical doctrines of the Church Fathers and the Scriptures.  Green (1971: 7).  The Reformed theological movement went fromthe fourteenth to seventeenth centuries and was a break from Roman Catholicleadership and teaching.  Divinesovereignty was an important emphasis of this movement.  Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 101).[6] Calvinism is a system which attempts touse Scripture to understand God’s divine theological plan for the ages. Green(1971: 7).  This system stems from thework 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).[20] While at the sametime seriously examining criticisms of the view.[21] And to also testthis approach empirically.[22] Pinnock (1986: 143).[23] Pinnock (1986:143).[24] Pinnock (1986: 145).[25] Pinnock (1986: 145).[26] Pinnock (1986:145).[27] Plantinga(1977)(2002: 53).[28] Plantinga (1977)(2002: 53).[29] Sanders (1998: 212).[30] Sanders (1998: 213).[31] Sanders (1998:213-214).[32] Sanders (1998: 213-214).[33] Sanders (1998: 214).[34] Reichenbach (1986: 105).[35] Feinberg, woulddeny that God would force persons to commit acts, instead it is God’s sovereignplan 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 ‘transcendstemporal categories.’  Kreeft and Tacelli(1994: 108).[39] Boulnois (2002:444).  [40] Calvin(1543)(1996: 36).[41] Hughes (1990: 45).[42] Hughes (1990: 45).[43] Edwards (1731-1733)(2006: 553).[44] Reichenbach (1986: 115).[45] Reichenbach (1986: 115).[46] Reichenbach (1986: 118).[47] Barth (1932-1968:3).  We cannot escape from God, he iseverywhere.  Frame (2002: 102).[48] Barth (1932-1968:3). [49] Barth (1932-1968:28).  God’s providence demonstrates‘preservation and government.’  Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 527 Volume 1).  [50] Frame (2002: 52).[51] Barth (1932-1968:3).  God always accomplishes what he sets out todo.  Frame (2002: 47).[52] Barth (1932-1968:5). [53] Barth (1932-1968:12). [54] Barth (1932-1968:12). [55] Barth (1932-1968:12).  The human being has freedom, butparticipates within the life of God.  Schelling(1845)(1936: 11).  G.C. Berkouwer reasonsthat God wants a free man, not a mechanical tool or creature than can bemaneuvered as the Almighty sees fit.  Berkouwer(1962: 333).   I reason human freedom always operates withinthe framework of God’s sovereignty and providence.[56] God governs andmaintains the creation, in order that it exists by means of its own ‘inherentproperties and laws.’ Shedd (1874-1890)(1980: 528 Volume 1). [57] Barth (1932-1968:12).   [58] Barth (1932-1968:13). [59] Schelling(1845)(1936: 11). [60] Schelling(1845)(1936: 11).  Schelling is notedwithin the ‘Introduction’ to believe in a divine personality and denied thatGod’s personality was incomprehensible. Schelling did reason wisdom could be found in God.  Gutmann (1845)(1936: xxv).[61] Schelling(1845)(1936: 32). [62] Shedd(1874-1890)(1980: 527 Volume 1).  Frame(2002: 274).[63] Shedd(1874-1890)(1980: 528 Volume 1). [64] Phillips (2005:22).[65] Hume (1779)(2004:50).[66] Hume (1779)(2004:50).[67] Hume (1779)(2004:50).[68] Hume (1779)(2004:50).[69] Hume (1779)(2004:50).[70] Sanders (1998: 212).  Frame would agree as God is thought to‘direct the entire universe.’ Frame (2002: 274).[71] Frame explainsthat the freedom is not libertarian, but persons make significantly freechoices 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/orcoercing  persons to commit actions wouldbe denied by many within Reformed theology. Frame (2002: 153).  Berkouwer(1962: 333).   Calvin (1543)(1996:68).[78] Would God onlycontrol the most vital events that must occur in order for his Kingdom toculminate?  If so, what happens toconcepts of incompatibilistic free will in these cases?[79] God can interject in human affairs andinfluence human decisions.