I read that Roger Olsen has a new book out called Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. (Not to be confused with Gordon Olson who I’ve blogged about.) I searched and found in The Baptist Standard an article written by Roger Olsen entitled God is sovereign over his sovereignty.
What does that even mean? Is this like saying “God is in control of what He controls” or “God in His omnipotence controls His omnipotence”? Mr. Olsen says,
“Sovereignty has to do with God’s governance of all things; the Christian doctrine of God’s sovereignty is that God is in charge of the universe and everything in it. He rules over it.”
Olsen is offering Arminius’ view of God’s sovereignty to get around the Calvinist view, but I don’t think adding one more layer of “sovereignty” somehow lessens God’s control. Say God removes His sovereignty in a certain area then who is in control? To what extent?
Olsen states,
“In other words, God limits his power to make room for human power of free choice, including freedom to resist grace. Free will is not a relic of human goodness that survived the fall in the garden; it is a gift of God’s grace that enables us to respond freely to the offer of Christ in the gospel.”
Of course, this always takes us back to the question of why does anyone believe. Is it not “good” to believe? Surely, no one would say that it’s a bad thing for a person to believe the Gospel. One may object that it is not because of our goodness that we believe, but because of God’s enabling grace in our free will. This just brings us back to the same question because if we are all just walking around with equal ability in our free wills to believe then God’s grace hasn’t really done anything for us. What is ones exercise of free will to believe contingent upon? Same “why” question with no answer.
I want to take a look at the statement that free will is “a gift of God’s grace that enables us to respond freely to the offer of Christ in the gospel” to show that Arminians do believe in a form of irresistible grace. Prevenient grace is also irresistible, but let’s stick to this particular statement. It’s relatively simple in this instance to show. Everyone has free will therefore everyone is a recipient of God’s grace in this manner. If God’s grace in this perspective can be resisted then not all have free will and the thesis falls apart. I’ve yet to ever hear an argument that people resist God’s gift of free will. Though I would like to see that argument if it exists.
An important part of this discussion that cannot be divorced from God’s sovereignty is God’s omniscience which just adds to the difficulty of the Arminian position. If this same argument is applied to God’s omniscience then we are knocking on the door of open theism. This would be where God’s knows, but in His sovereignty He chooses not to know. Things that make you go hhhmmm.
And then there’s this charged to the Calvinist, “God is the all-determining reality who sovereignly plans and controls all events, including the free choices of humans.” Is this true though and how do we know? Here is a list of Scripture from a John Piper sermon which I think biblically addresses these concerns.
How God governs all events in the universe without sinning, and without removing responsibility from man, and with compassionate outcomes is mysterious indeed! But that is what the Bible teaches. God “works all things after the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11).
This “all things” includes the fall of sparrows (Matthew 10:29), the rolling of dice (Proverbs 16:33), the slaughter of his people (Psalm 44:11), the decisions of kings (Proverbs 21:1), the failing of sight (Exodus 4:11), the sickness of children (2 Samuel 12:15), the loss and gain of money (1 Samuel 2:7), the suffering of saints (1 Peter 4:19), the completion of travel plans (James 4:15), the persecution of Christians (Hebrews 12:4-7), the repentance of souls (2 Timothy 2:25), the gift of faith (Philippians 1:29), the pursuit of holiness (Philippians 3:12-13), the growth of believers (Hebrews 6:3), the giving of life and the taking in death (1 Samuel 2:6), and the crucifixion of his Son (Acts 4:27-28).
Olsen says in respect to God’s love that Calvinists don’t follow their own logic, but doesn’t tell us exactly what he’s talking about here. I am going to guess and say based on his attributed belief to Calvinists that “God loves all people in some way but only the elect in every way” he means we aren’t particular in who we share the Gospel with. Well, I am not God and I cannot love the same way God does. However, I am commanded to love my wife as Christ loved the church which is the elect. If loving the church like Christ means loving all people in every way then I am going to let someone else explain this to my wife because she is about to be very unhappy. Honey, don’t worry; I have a special love for you just as Christ has a special love for the elect. As you can see this is not a case of Calvinists being inconsistent in this area.
In the final paragraph Olsen writes,
“Clearly, God does not completely get his way, because he is sovereign over his sovereignty and allows sinful people to thwart his will.”
Why does God get His way at all then and how incomplete is His will in being fulfilled? The problem in this situation is that the only one who really gets their way is people through their free will. This leaves God’s plan in redemptive history contingent on people making the right decisions which means people must submit their sovereign wills to God’s. So who is really in charge?
Previous post: Rome and Evangelicalism: Cults with the Same Gospel?
