Monday, December 19, 2022

Gordon Clark: If God Is not Sovereign (The Presbyterian Journal)

1960. If God Is not Sovereign. The Presbyterian Journal 9 Nov. pgs. 9, 22.

If God Is not Sovereign

The Churches that call themselves Reformed (Calvinistic, or Presbyterian) have always emphasized the sovereignty of God. In the historic standards of the Presbyterian churches, the Westminster Confession, emphasis on sovereignty is found not only in chapter three, but it permeates the whole. The concept of grace, the plan of redemption, effectual calling, the perseverance of the saints, all presuppose that God is sovereign. If, now, some people are agitating to alter the third chapter of the Confession, one would like to know two things:

First, what do they propose to substitute for chapter three; and

Second, what do they propose to do with the remainder of the Confession and the Catechisms?

Until the revisionists make open and public declarations of their intentions, one can only canvass the possible alternatives. Perhaps it would be better to say, one can only examine the other alternative; for if the sovereignty of God is to be discarded, obviously it must be maintained that God is not sovereign. There is no other possibility.

If now God is not sovereign, it will in the first place be impossible to think of God as Creator. Clearly, if God has by an almighty act created everything out of nothing, He is easily able to control what He has created. But if there be something He cannot control, if there be something beyond His power, He can neither be almighty nor creator. There must, on the contrary, be some uncreated power independent of God. For all we know, this uncreated Whatever-it-is may be more powerful than God. Perhaps this is what we should worship.

Or, if both God and the Whatever-it-is are limited, each by the other, maybe we should be polytheists and worship both. Those who wish to revise the Confession should state clearly and honestly what they believe it is that limits God. If there are things that God cannot do, we should like to know what the power is that prevents Him from doing such things. The Confession as now written is clear and explicit. A revision should not be less forthright.

In connection with the doctrine of creation there arises the problem of the origin of evil. No doubt this perplexity counts considerably toward motivating revision. Let us ask therefore, did God create the devil or did He not? If He did not, then of course monotheism must be repudiated. But it will doubtless be replied, God created all angels righteous; later on Satan fell. Quite so: God created Lucifer righteous; no Bible-believer would say otherwise. Yet we would ask, Did God know that Satan would sin, or did He create him without knowing what was to happen. If the revisionists believe in a God who is ignorant of the future, let them say so clearly. But if God is not ignorant, then obviously He created Satan knowing full well that he would fall and would cause man to fall also.

Embarrassing or not, this means that God's sovereignty somehow must ultimately include evil and sin. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then He could have prevented the occurrence of sin either by omnipotently preventing Satan from sinning, or by not creating him at all. It follows therefore, even more rigorously than the day the night, that God intended to create a world in which sin would be permitted. Otherwise it could not be true that Christ was ordained to

be slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:20; Rev. 13:8). It may be embarrassing to say that God must be reckoned with in any understanding of evil, but to think otherwise is completely unChristian (Acts 4:28). The reformers were not embarrassed and said what they thought. Everyone else should be as honest.

The Bible is a millstone around the necks of the revisionists, at least to the extent that they feel it expedient to pay lip-service to its authority. For what can they do with Isaiah? "I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God ... I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I am Jehovah that doeth all these things" (Isa. 42:5-7).

A few verses below, as well as other passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah, provide Paul with the thought of God as the Potter and man as clay: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?" (Rom. 9:21). In these several passages men have no rights that they can enforce against God. They are clay in the divine hands, and God does with them as He will. The illustration, powerful as it is, does not do justice to reality, because in reality God not only fashions the clay into vessels of honor and dishonor — He created the clay in the first place. What do the revisionists think of Paul, of Isaiah, of Jeremiah, and of God? Is God Creator or not?

Not alone in the doctrine of creation is the sovereignty of God seen; it is seen equally in redemption. Thus those who wish to alter chapter three of the Confession must alter the plan of salvation. Election, irresistible grace, effectual calling, and the control of history so that the crucifixion would fulfill all the details of prophecy, are all examples of divine sovereignty. What will the revisionists do with these? Is man really dead in sin so that redemption depends on the divine initiative of life-giving grace? Or is man not dead in sin so that he can of himself exercise his good judgment and choose the way of life without first being regenerated? Can he then persevere in righteousness in his own strength? If so, he is essentially his own saviour. If not, he can have no assurance of heaven. What is the revisionist position on these points? Surely the revisionist cannot repeat the psalm, "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee" (65:4); for the psalmist sings of sovereignty.

Revision of chapter three alone is impossible. The Confession teaches a system of doctrine. Each part is implicated in each other part. Presbyterian ordination requires acceptance of this system. A revision would express a different system, a different religion, a different God, a different human nature, and a different Lord and Saviour.

*  *  * *

Dr. Clark is Professor of Philosophy, Butler University,  Indianapolis, Ind.

 

 

No comments: