What Do You Mean “God is Sovereign”? Four Options
Believing in the sovereignty of God is not an option of yes, no, or maybe within the Christian context. If the Bible is our authoritative guide, one must believe that God is sovereign. It is not unlike the issue of predestination. That God predestines people to salvation is not up for debate, what is up for debate is what it means that God predestines.
Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that God is sovereign, but they will often disagree as to what this means.
Here are the four primary options:
1. Meticulous sovereignty: God is the instrumental cause behind every action and reaction there has ever been. In other words, you chose white socks instead of the black socks because God caused it to happen. You have an itch on your eyebrow right now because God is actively causing it. In other words, every molecule that bounces into another is a result of God active agency in being the first and instrumental cause to the action.
This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.
God is actively controlling everything.
Adherents: Hyper-Calvinists and some Calvinists
2. Providential sovereignty: While God is bringing about his will in everything (Eph 1:11), his will is not the instrumental cause of all that happens. God’s will plays a providential role in “causing” all things. In other words, all that happens happens because God did in some sense will it, but secondary causes are usually the instrumental cause behind the action. In the case of your socks, you chose them because you decided to, but it was also part of God’s will. God allows evil as it is part of his imperfect will to bring about a perfect end, but he is not the instrumental cause of evil.
This position holds much tension with regards to human will and divine will.
God is in control of everything.
Adherents: Calvinists and some Arminians
3. Providential oversight: Here God’s sovereignty is more of an oversight. He has a general plan, but is not married to the details. When necessary, God will intervene in the affairs of humanity to bring about his purpose, but this does not necessarily involve an intimate engagement with all that happens. God does not care what color socks you pick unless it somehow effects his meta plan.
This position holds much tension with regards to human will and divine will.
God could control everything, but only controls some things.
Adherents: Arminians and some Calvinists
4. Influential oversight: Here God’s sovereignty is self-limited. God could control things, but to preserve human freedom, he will not intervene in the affairs of men to the degree that the human will is decisively bent in one direction or another. He is hopeful that his influence will be persuasive to change a person’s heart or to guide them to his will, but is not sure if this will happen. Being all-wise, however, God will make strategic moves in people’s lives that will manipulate the situation to his advantage.
This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.
God could control everything, but decides only to influence.
Adherents: Open Theist Arminians and some Arminians
Here are some charts that might help.
This first one is God’s relationship to evil. Please note: the definitions below are that of emphasis, not necessarily exclusivity—there will be overlap with some of the concepts.
I write this for many reason:
1. To give the spectrum of belief with regard to the issue of divine sovereignty.
2. To clear up some misconceptions about both Calvinists and Arminians. Most Arminians see Calvinists as only associated with number 1 (meticulous sovereignty). As well, most Calvinists see Arminians as associated necessarily with number 4 (influential sovereignty). To do this is to construct many possible straw-men representations.
Notice, according to my argument, an Arminian holding to number 2 can actually hold to a stronger view of divine sovereignty than a Calvinist holding to number 3 (although this is not typical). If that does not confuse your categories, I don’t know what will!
3. To create some new charts!
Where do you stand?
Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- What Do You Mean “God is Sovereign”? Four Options
- Why Calvinism is the Least Rational Option
- Tension in Calvinism - tension in the Christian faith
- Tension in Calvinism - tension in the Christian faith
- What do
You Mean By “Free Will”
Mark.kraM on 31 Jul 2008 at 6:49 pm #
Long time reader, first time poster!
I am torn between point 1 and point 2. I just don’t know how to decide. And sometimes I think it’s both with God being meticulous sometimes and other time just willing.
I’m pretty comfortable with all the statements, 3 and 4 included, and which ever one is actually true I would have no problems with.
Mark.kraM
Spherical on 31 Jul 2008 at 7:10 pm #
I guess I stand around 3.5 on the scale of 1 to 4. But some would say that I was predestined to say that. Doh!
Bill on 31 Jul 2008 at 7:34 pm #
Isn’t it possible that God causes, wills, uses and allows in different situations at different times?
This is my basic problem with theology - the desire to wrap it all up neatly in one statement that is always most descriptive of Him who is utterly beyond us. And I’m actually very conservative, just in practical, non-theoretical ways. I just find it more logical to suppose God does all four.
Now, honestly, if I’m correct but still missing the point, can you please explain how?
L P Cruz on 31 Jul 2008 at 7:40 pm #
I stand on the Lutheran view, the sovereignty of God is found no where else but at the Cross of Christ for Sinners.
The game is finished. It is all done. Jesus rose from the grave and has won eternal life for sinners.
Case is closed.
Andy on 31 Jul 2008 at 7:45 pm #
I guess I am more in the #2 camp.
I read God in scripture as more of a sovereign than an overseer (knocking out #3 and #4), but I think He allows the tension between divine will and human will to exist (knocking out #1). I even think that tension allows for the accountability for our actions that I believe we are held to, which I would find hard to grasp if it were a meticulous sovereignty.
But thanks again for twisting my mind into a pretzel for a bit, it needs the workout!
Ranger on 31 Jul 2008 at 8:05 pm #
In the past I’ve been heavily in group 1 and heavily in group 4. I’ve read all of the big books for and against open theism. I’ve been so for it in the past that I’ve written articles and papers at the academic level supporting it. I’ve been so against it (in response to my former beliefs) that I’ve bordered on hyper-Calvinism.
Now I’m somewhere in between. There are far too many passages that have to be allegorized (or taken completely out of context IMO) for options 1 and 4. Therefore, I’m somewhere in group 2 or 3.
With that said, I know from the past that it’s very easy to say that those in 1 and/or 4 are not evangelical, or even that they are not followers of Christ. That’s simply wrong. There are not only believers in all four groups, but evangelical inerrantists. So a word of encouragement for those who are in the extremes and firing arrows at the other side…they are your brothers and sisters in Christ, and just because you disagree with their interpretation of Scripture doesn’t nullify their faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Perry Robinson on 31 Jul 2008 at 8:56 pm #
And Molinism fits where? I don’t think the chart is fine grained enough and the way the issue is framed is in terms of Calvinism and Arminianism. In fact, there were many views prior to these and it would prove helpful to your readers to gloss them as well.
Scotism, Thomism, Molinism and Ockhamism are all ways to gloss Augustine.
Palamism is the Eastern take.
Some of the positions will agree with 3 or 4 depending on the event.
As for causing evil, even Augustine doesn’t agree with that idea. He makes it clear for example in his commentary on Genesis, among other places that God wills all things but only causes some.
Bill on 31 Jul 2008 at 9:49 pm #
I just realized I don’t know what you mean by “evil”. If you mean sadistic mass murdering of babies and genocide… then I withdraw from the entire question. I ain’t smart enough to answer that one.
But if by “evil” you merely meant the opposite of “good” - ie, a broken leg or losing my house or an accidental death… then I go back to my original answer.
That probably makes a big difference, doesn’t it?
Leslie on 01 Aug 2008 at 8:27 am #
Bill:
Suffering is relative. Losing a house may be “evil’ to you, but what about a person that doesn’t even have a house.
Wm Tanksley on 01 Aug 2008 at 12:32 pm #
“And Molinism fits where?”
Middle knowledge? It fits into #4, along with many many other things that don’t belong in the same category. I’m not happy with these 4 categories; they’re way too much of a gloss. Many of the words Patton uses are inadequate (God “wills” evil? God’s will is “imperfect”?) But it’s only a model.
I find Molinism to be less credible than Calvinism (even for people who don’t believe in Calvinism) — after all, if God knew in advance what any of his possibly created beings were going to do, and if he’s free to arrange his creation so that his created beings will maximize their potential for good, then you must conclude that either we will all be saved, or none of us will be saved, or some of us are created intrinsically better than others. None of those options fits with anything I believe.
C Michael Patton on 01 Aug 2008 at 12:42 pm #
Folks, thanks for the comments.
These categories are not supposed to be exhustive, but representative. In this, they do represent all the major positions, even if you have to nuance the wording according to your tradition. I have found that this is a very good way to look at the issue, but, more importantly, help people understand that not everyone means the same thing when they use the “s” word.
bethyada on 01 Aug 2008 at 10:48 pm #
I do not think that God wills everything (especially some particularly bad things) so that rules out 2, unless the idea that God knew something was going to happen and did not stop it is interpreted as willing it.
So I guess 3 or 4 though I don’t really see much difference between the 2.
I don’t see the issue as how much God intervenes and/ or influences. I don’t actually think God is able to force someone who he has given self-will to to love him. So God could be hugely active at the level of 2 but we still have to choose to respond to him.
God is able to get the events of the world to happen to whatever degree he wishes, but the plans of God for what happens are not the plans of God for individual conversion. God may have a desire for what colour socks you wear and yet this outcome does not happen for some people because the refuse to listen and obey God on the matter.
God could force someone to wear a certain colour for his own ends by stopping someone thinking of other options, ensuring the others are in the wash, or all but one pair have a sock missing. It’s not that actions are unable to be done by God, rather does he make them happen even if he desires them to happen.
Karen on 02 Aug 2008 at 2:22 am #
This was great, and the timing apropos, since I’m reading an excellent book by RC Sproul on just this subject.
I am somewhere between 2 and 3 on your chart.
Ken on 02 Aug 2008 at 10:28 am #
I agree with number 2
However, in the details of number 2 you state that “God allows evil as it is part of his imperfect will to bring about a perfect end, but he is not the instrumental cause of evil.” Okay so far. But then in the chart for number 2 you state “God wills evil for the greater good”. This is not the same thing at all Michael. Not even close. If he is not the instrumental cause, then he does not explicitly will it, which is what the chart summary implies.
While I realize that the chart can not say the same thing for numbers 2 and 4, you need a different summarization for 4. How about something like “God may intervene against evil for the greater good” or “for His purposes” or some such?
So, I like the attempt to create some clarity but I don’t think the chart is ready for prime time yet.
damaag on 04 Aug 2008 at 12:34 am #
If good and evil is determined by God how can one and two be?
If God causes something that what He wants, and wouldn’t be evil.
If God wills something to be that wouldn’t be against His will, and wouldn’t be evil.
The first two Meticulous Sovereignty and Providential Sovereignty as defined seem to be self defeating.
I believe the Bible teach both God uses and allows evil.
So not three or four, but both.
God is sovereign. « WHATEVER! on 04 Aug 2008 at 12:42 pm #
[...] out Michael’s post on sovereignty and let me know where you land on the continuum he lays out. I thought it was really helpful to [...]
Wm Tanksley on 04 Aug 2008 at 6:37 pm #
I read an interesting post on Douglas Wilson’s blog (see http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&BlogID=5726):
“If the world and all its heartache and resident evils were a clock, then the only sane conclusion would have to be that the clock is broken[...] But the world is not a clock. The world is a story.
Is The Lord of the Rings broken because it has Nazgul in it? Is Pride and Prejudice broken because Wickham is a chump? Is Beowulf twisted because Grendel was twisted?
…God is a master storyteller, and He does not put absurd remainders, pointless dead-ends and irrecuperable absurdities into His story. He will bring all the threads together in the last chapter, no strays and no remainders, no oddities that the editor missed.”
An interesting way of putting it. Shakespeare had total sovereign power over Shylock… Was Shakespeare acting evilly to have him demand his pound of flesh?
-Wm
rayner markley on 06 Aug 2008 at 9:44 pm #
I have concerns with the phrase ‘evil for the greater good.’
1. What is the greater good?
It seems that much evil in the world leads to no good whatsoever. With His resources, God ought to be able to achieve a greater good much more efficiently without resort to evil.
2. What is God’s economy like?
Scripture seems to indicate that evil greatly outweighs good in the world. For example, few are saved or chosen; many are lost. Are the few redeemed really worth more than the many condemned?
rayner markley on 08 Aug 2008 at 11:32 pm #
At creation, God delegated sovereignty over the creation to Adam and Eve. That has not been rescinded, and it would seem to rule out a meticulous role for God (#1). So, I see God’s will being for creation to run itself, both by the natural laws and by man’s will. And man himself is part of creation, of course. Thus, I would also rule out #2 because God does not have a specific will in regard to everything. His will is for mankind to run things–with justice and love, of course.
I guess that puts me somewhere around #3 and #4. I might call it a constitutional sovereignty, in which God has set the rules that the population lives by.
C. Barton on 11 Aug 2008 at 8:59 am #
God is the original cause, and continues to keep things together (not trying to be Spinoza-esque), yet He gave Adam & Eve a condition about the Fruit of Knowledge. He set the stage early on about our ability to be self-willed and what the results would be.
But I see three basic things expounded in scripture:
1) God abosolutely fulfills His prophesies and His promises. Nothing left to chance or detached human involvement here.
2) He answers prayer, even in miraculous ways. Think, fire devouring your mortal enemies & the sun hanging out in the sky for a day or two. No question of sovereign powers here.
3) He controls the outcome. I mean, He controls the Outcome, which conveniently redirects me to item 1, because He also told us about it ahead of time.
Omniscience is most likely a key element in the application of sovereignty, I think.
C. Barton on 12 Aug 2008 at 9:52 am #
Also, when Jesus walked the planet as God and Man, He demonstrated His power over nature (the storm on the sea) and evil (healing, forgiveness, exorcism), yet it says that He could do few miracles in some places because of “unbelief”. What a horrible and awesome power we have as a human race, that our resistance and lack of faith can prevent Jesus from operating freely!
Perhaps the evil that God “allows” is really the vacuum that we ourselves create through our self-willed trainwreck of spiritual death.
Yet, I don’t think He “allows” evil, I think that the keynote of His love story in the Bible is about His rescue operation for us, He wants to fill the vacuum, but the doors of our hearts open from the inside: they can’t be forced open from the outside. The bad stuff persists, I think, because He wants us to participate in this story, and that requires battles, growth, and practice of faith in the world.
So, I’m somewhere between 3 & 4.
Shaun on 07 Sep 2008 at 6:09 pm #
Can all four points be true? Can God act in any of the four ways situationally according to His will?
C. Barton on 08 Sep 2008 at 10:25 am #
Shaun, if I may be informal, I think that God acts in ways we never imagined just to show us that we don’t really have Him figured out.
I can’t imagine what it will be like to go up to meet Him, but I’m sure it’ll be awesome!