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:
Post a Comment