In this post, I really just want to ask a question. Is God sovereign? And what does that mean? I know that most of us have strong opinions on this (even if we don’t realize we do). I definitely have my own opinions on the matter, but I want to hear what other people think. I think that there are difficult questions for either side, so don’t just give a yes or no, but try to answer (as best you can) the difficult questions surrounding your view. (Please include other questions if you can think of some that I overlooked).
If you do believe that God controls everything then (1) how do you still account for human responsibility and (2) how do you account for evil? Is God responsible for it?
If you do not believe that God controls everything then (1) is he truly omnipotent and omniscient (does he know the future?) and (2) is it possible that his ultimate plan could fail?
Keep it friendly :)
Well, I don't think I have strong opinion on the subject as a whole, though I do have strong opinions on individual questions. :-)
ReplyDeleteTo answer the questions:
Yes, God is sovereign. That means that God is the source of every created being, not just as the efficient cause, but as Being itself. God doesn't "control everything" in the sense that most people would understand that phrase, because the common understanding precludes the possibility of moral responsibility.
Yes, God is omnipotent and omniscient. No, it is not possible for his ultimate plan to fail.
Good brief answers. A few followup questions:
ReplyDeleteIf God does not "control everything" according to the normal understanding, then how does he "control?"
Does his ultimate control really preclude human responsibility? I would say that it definitely precludes the human ability for contrary choice, but this doesn't necessarily negate human responsibility, does it? Isn't human culpability based on the will?
"If God does not "control everything" according to the normal understanding, then how does he "control?" "
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I don't know. :-)
I believe there is some sense in which God controls everything, but I also believe that this sense doesn't contradict human free choice. I frequently waver between the Thomist and Molinist positions. (At least insofar as I understand them.) The Thomists are more Augustinian/predestinarian, while the Molinists have more emphasis on free will.
"Does his ultimate control really preclude human responsibility?"
No. I was just disagreeing with a mechanistic understanding of "ultimate control" that precludes free choice as a possibility. (Thus the reference to "efficient cause.")
"I would say that it definitely precludes the human ability for contrary choice, but this doesn't necessarily negate human responsibility, does it?"
I think the Thomists would say that this depends on whether we are speaking of primary or secondary causality.
"Isn't human culpability based on the will?"
Indeed.
I'm not sure that I have much more to say on the subject, since it isn't something I've studied extensively. :-)
"To be honest, I don't know. :-)"
ReplyDeleteWell said; couldn't say it better myself :)
I wrote, "Does his ultimate control really preclude human responsibility?"
Then you wrote, "No. I was just disagreeing with a mechanistic understanding of "ultimate control" that precludes free choice as a possibility. (Thus the reference to "efficient cause.")"
I wasn't really aiming at nuancing our definition of "ultimate control" as much as our definition of "human responsibility." I was simply questioning whether human responsibility (which I think we all agree on) necessarily implies the ability for contrary choice (which is what I think you mean by "free choice").
I've only really begun to study these issues, but I haven't really found the Thomist position to be too convincing. The Molinist position is very intriguing, but I'm not completely sold on it yet. It's so philosophically based. I'm not sure yet how it derives from Scripture.
The notion of "free will" is central to the Eastern Orthodox view of God and man. God is so sovereign that He is capable of creating man in His image: a sovereign being capable of rejecting God or accepting Him. In the EO view of the fall the image is marred but not obliterated, the human being still has, within the "grace created image" the capacity to choose the good (John Cassian's "semi-Pelagian" view, which assumes Pelagius is the benchmark, but that is another issue). Once you move outside of that, God becomes the "puppet master", which in the end eliminates love as a free choice. And in the sarcastic parody of Christianity at "Landmark Baptist" we end up with "Love Me or Burn"... and God decides who will love Him, which is even more heinous.
ReplyDeleteHaving thought about this for some 20 odd years, I have come to a critical conclusion summarized in s-p's last sentence.
ReplyDeleteIn the end there is a paradox: God can do what God likes, God is good, evil exists and we have free will. Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle and neo-Platonism don't help much to explain that paradox in any real existential way, not without significant additional assumptions and with potential absurdity (see Landmark Baptists). In a universe of quantum mechanics and of billion galaxies and possible alternate dimensions, the paradox of sovereignty and free will is somehow true.