Sovereignty of God
Reading: John 6.28-40
I love the Robin Hood invented by Ridley Scott’s film (starring Russell Crow)
- he’s a commoner who impersonates a Lord, and helps defeat the French army
- and he even instigates the Baron’s contract with King John: the Magna Carta
- this film helped me to understand the importance of the Magna Carta
- it was written by the barons to protect their property from the King’s taxes
- but this Robin Hood reminds us about it’s ultimate importance for all of us
- because it started the move towards human rights and limiting Sovereign rights
The Sovereign used to be able to do anything – no-one could ignore their orders
- they could shout “Off with his head” like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland
- everything and everyone in the land belonged to them; no law applied to them
- so Sovereignty meant total freedom to do as you liked, without question
When theologians applied this to God, it described his total freedom and power
- human kings, unlike God, have many limitations. They aren’t all-powerful
- sometimes their subjects refuse to obey them, or run out of grapes to feed them
- but God can be a real Sovereign – all powerful, all the time, over everything
Today, “Sovereignty of God” is usually another way of saying “Predestination”
- predestination in this sense means that God decides everything that happens
- ie God is sovereign and can do what he likes, so he predestines everything
But there are some subtleties to this which make a great deal of difference
- what do we mean when we say that God can do whatever he likes?
- can he do the impossible like squaring a circle or making odd numbers even?
- and what do we mean by God’s predestination in our personal lives?
- do we have any choice? eg to love, or to repent, or to eat bacon for breakfast?
First let’s get rid of the ridiculous. God can’t do anything which is impossible
- language can describe silly things, like “God can make two and two into five”
- just because we can say it, doesn’t make it possible or meaningful
- it is just plain silly nonsense, like saying: “God can make a purple question”
- he can’t: unless he also changes the meaning of “purple” or “question”
- this is just playing with words. It marks the limitation of language, not of God
Also, God can’t do things which would involve undoing what he’s decided to do
- he can’t make planets move in square orbits without fundamentally changing creation
- he can’t change the past without breaking the whole universe of cause & effect
- perhaps he COULD do these things, but not without undoing what he’s done
- and if God’s faithfulness and constancy means anything, it means that what God has done is what he’s decided to do, and so it will remain done.
But where God’s sovereignty impinges on us the most is in personal freedom
- can God can make a person want to do what they don’t want to do?
- can God make us love him and want to serve him when we don’t really want to?
- is this a silly way of speaking? Is it just playing with the word “want”?
- it sounds silly, but modern brain science is getting close to similar ideas
FMRI (Functional magnetic resonance imaging) can watch your brain think
- we can now detect a decision to move an eye before the eye itself moves
- and the FMRI machine can detect that decision before the person knows it
- that is, a scientist watching the readout knows they will move their eye before the person themselves know that they have even decided to move their eye
- does this mean that personal decisions are merely an illusion?
- that is, we THINK that we decided, but actually it was already decided for us?
- that’s how some are interpreting this – as showing free will is an illusion
- but others say that our conscious mind is only a small part of our mind
- most of our thinking and deciding goes on in our unconscious mind
- and our conscious mind, which is the slowest bit, is the last bit to find out
Theologians don’t have fancy experiments to help them explore such questions
- they can only think about it and make a coherent picture like philosophers do
- or they can look for clues in the Bible where God reveals his mind to us
Theologians divide into two camps on this issue: Calvinists and Arminians
- named after Jean Calvin (1509–1564) and Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609)
- the dates are interesting: Arminius was born just before Calvin died, and died 100 years after Calvin was born. That is, Arminius was responding to Calvin
- Calvin set out his philosophy about Predestination and Arminius countered it
Calvin said: If God is totally sovereign, whatever happens must be his will
- no-one can do anything which isn’t God’s will. God decides everything we do
- he applied this most significantly to salvation: God decides that we will repent
- this sound unfair, because how can he demand that we repent if its up to him?
- Calvin explained it: we are so degraded by sin that we aren’t able to repent
- God helps us by his Holy Spirit who gives us the ability to repent; and so we do
- this sounds as if we have freedom to decide to repent or to refuse to repent
- but Calvin said: the Holy Spirit’s grace is irresistible, so we certainly repent
- so God’s will is always done: He can decide who will repent by enabling them
Calvin pointed to many Scriptures. Here’s a significant one:
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Arminius pointed out a consequence of this, which he couldn’t accept:
- if God decides who will repent, he is also deciding who will not repent
- and it isn’t fair for God to punish people for not repenting if they can’t repent
- of course, they are still sinners, and can be punished for their sin
- but you can’t say they will be punished for merely not believing and repenting
- for example, just before the verse saying believers were “appointed” to believe
Acts.13.46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
- this shows that people weren’t excluded by God’s decision but by their own
- Paul says THEY “trust it aside”, judged for themselves and rejected eternal life
- and in John 16.9: people will be judged “because they do not believe in me”
Today the contrast isn’t normally between Calvin and Arminius
- today there is a battle between Calvinism’s TULIP and Wesleyan teaching
- Arminius was expounded much better by John Wesley and his followers
- and Calvinism has move on a long way since Calvin and is somewhat different
Calvinism is now summarised by the Five Points (which came after Calvin)
T – Total depravity: ie we are all too sinful to be able to choose to repent
U – Unconditional election: ie God’s choice isn’t conditional on anything we do
L – Limited atonement: ie Jesus died only for those whom he knew would repent
I – Irresistible grace: ie when God invites us to repent, we can’t help but do so
P – Perseverance of the elect: ie once saved always saved
Notice that there’s no “A” for Assurance – ie you can’t be sure you are saved
- Calvin preached against those who presumed to be sure during this lifetime
- you only knew someone was elect if they kept believing to the end of their life
- if they didn’t keep believing, then they weren’t a real believer in the first place
- God knows who the real elect are, but they themselves cannot know for sure
- living a Christian lifestyle helps to suggest you are elect, but doesn’t make you elect because salvation doesn’t depend on anything you choose to do
Wesleyan theology doesn’t come packaged in such a nice tulip-shaped summary
- the best they can do is to respond to TULIP with their alternatives:
Calvinist: Total depravity. Wesleyan: Limited depravity
- yes, we are sinful, and we need God’s help to repent, but God helps everyone.
Calvinist: Unconditional election. Wesleyan: Conditional election
- yes, good works don’t save you, but salvation is conditional on our response
Calvinist: Limited atonement Wesleyan: Unlimited atonement
- Jesus died for ALL sins, but they are only forgiven if we ask for forgiveness
Calvinist: Irresistible grace. Wesleyan: Resistible grace
- God gives us enough freedom to choose to follow him and to choose not to
Calvinist: Perseverance of the elect. Wesleyan: Promise of salvation
- those who choose to repent are promised forgiveness and know they are saved
Notice that Wesleyan theology does not included final Assurance of salvation
- if you can choose to follow God, you can also choose to stop following God
I realise that we aren’t really talking about Assurance of salvation today
- but I mention it because this is such a fundamental reaching in Christianity
- and I regard it as foundational to Scripture teaching. We no longer fear death
- so it is significant that neither of these two big theology systems include it
- to my mind this suggests that neither of these systems have got it right yet
The Bible is the touch-stone for me. Neat theology is nice, but the Bible is right.
- of course, proponents of both base their theology on a biblical foundation
- they throw verses at each other like politicians throw statistics
- there’s nothing wrong with the Bible verses, nor with statistics
- but both can be misused and can be used to confuse rather than enlighten.
Calvinists quote verses containing words like ‘predestined’, ‘chosen’ and ‘elect’
Wesleyans quote verses containing words like ‘repent’, ‘follow’ and ‘believe’
- of course both sides use all these words, but they mean different things by them
For example:
Predestine: The Greek pro-orizow means to carry out a prior-plan
- for a Calvinist, this is God's inescapable prior-plan of salvation or damnation
- ie God has two different prior-plans which he applies to whom-ever he chooses
- for a Weslean, this is God’s prior-plan of salvation which he offers to all
- ie God has one prior-plan for everyone, and they choose to accept or reject it
Repent: The Greek meta-noeow means to change one’s mind
- for a Calvinist, God enables us to repent, and then we can’t help but do it
- ie although we do freely repent, we can’t fail to repent or refuse to repent
- for a Wesleyan, God enables everyone at some time to choose to repent
- ie we can also chose to reject God’s prompting, and God won’t force us
Sovereignty: This isn’t strictly a Bible word. Most Bibles don’t use it at all
- a few use it in Daniel 5.18 (about Nebuchadnezzar) and 7.27 (about Israel)
- it is a theological word based on the Bible calling God the King of Kings
- so God is a Sovereign and has Sovereignty – ie Kingly power and authority
- though as a theological word it has come to mean the power to do everything
Calvinists and Wesleyans both call God “sovereign” but mean different things
- they both mean God’s kingly right and power to do whatever he wants
- Calvinists mean that whatever happens in the world is what God plans
- Wesleyans mean that whatever God plans to do in the world will happen
- this is rather subtle, so let me repeat it, with some emphasis:
- Calvinists say that whatever happens in the world is what God plans
- Wesleyans say that whatever God plans to do in the world will happen
OK, that didn’t work. Lets try it more slowly.
Calvinists say God decides everything, so whatever happens is planned by God
- so whatever happens in the world, good or bad, is what God wants to happen
- if it is bad, it might wonder why God wanted it, but he must have a reason in the long run, and we shouldn’t question why he did it.
- so bad things – like famines, mass-murders, wars, and people going to hell – must be part of God’s plan because they happen, and God is in control
- God is sovereign, and he does whatever he wants, and we can’t question it
Wesleyans say that God can do anything he wants, but he also lets things happen
- so everything that God plans to do, will happen, but other stuff happens too
- the earth isn’t perfect so famines and earthquakes harm people indiscriminately
- humans aren’t perfect and often don’t obey God, so murders and wars happen
- God’s plan is to offer salvation to free individuals, but freedom brings bad stuff
- God is sovereign in that he could prevent all evil, and one day he’ll end all evil
- but that Judgement Day will also end the opportunity to choose to repent
These two systems create two very different images of God as a Sovereign
- Calvin’s sovereign is like a good dictator with super-police to control everyone
- he allows seemingly bad things, but these are all part of his secret plan for good
- Wesley’s sovereign is like a democrat who educates people to choose wisely
- he threatens criminals with punishment, but doesn’t control people’s lives
I think both of these pictures are flawed, because God is NOT like a king