This past Thursday morning at Bagels and Bible Study, we had an engaging and wide-ranging conversation about God’s will, God’s sovereignty, humankind’s free will, and how/if God speaks through listening prayer. We covered Molinism, Cessationism, and a lot of other ground in-between. In this small group we have views that range from strict Calvinism to bordering on Open Theism.
It was an awesome conversation, and we all left stronger in our faith!
Something occurred to me during our conversation, that I couldn’t quite verbalize while we were talking; so I thought I’d write a blog post about it.
While I was in Hermeneutics at Columbia International University (CIU), they taught us something that I did not fully agree with at the time. This conversation taught me the importance of it. They taught us that we must not treat logical inference from Scripture, as Scripture. In other words, anything that you can logically derive from the principles of Scripture, cannot be held in the same category as Scripture itself.
It occurred to me that the debate between sovereignty and free will is a fantastic example as to why, because it is at the exact point that each side of this debate moves from Scripture into logical inference that the other side actually centers themselves in Scripture. Let me explain.
When someone who has an unbending view of God’s sovereignty makes the logical leap from the Scriptural principles that God is sovereign, He is omniscient, and He is omnipotent to He must have therefore caused these things to occur (including my decision to sin), that person runs afoul of the person who has an unbending view of humankind’s free will. When someone who has an unbending view of humankind’s free will makes the logical leap from the Scriptural principles that God knows all things actual and possible, humankind is endowed with a choice, and God changes His mind to God knows possibilities but perhaps not exact outcomes, that person runs afoul of the person who has an unbending view of God’s sovereignty.
I know that some of you feel that I have mischaracterized or oversimplified your positions. True. But those arguments are not the point of this post. I used the oversimplification to demonstrate the rhetoric. These viewpoints can both be derived by having a high view of scripture. The only difference is that these viewpoints choose which Scriptures to make logical inference from.
The answer, I think, is in simply admitting that the Bible is true and only a being with a higher form of knowledge and intellect than ours can synthesize what seem to be opposites.
Beautiful Eulogy in their new album, Worthy, has a song called “Sovereign.” It sums it up nicely, I think:
From the skies to the seas and everything that lies in between
Beautiful Eulogy, Sovereign
Everything that exists in the universe is dispersed by His decree
He’s infinitely supreme and orchestrates all things
The One who sits in the Heavens and laughs and does whatever He pleases
Who governs the governments, and establishes kings
The Prince of Peace who proceeds over prophets, presidents, and priests
Who guides the plans of man, but lets that man choose freely
While simultaneously exercising divine sovereignty
Who intervenes on the will of man and causes for man to believe
Who appeases the wrath of God that brings peace to His enemies
The Lord over lords and the King over all earthly kings
The pervasive power of God displayed through His mighty deeds
The God of our destiny, the Author and Finisher of faith
With the power to persuade man, and sway souls for God’s sake
The ultimate source of authority who rules with mercy and grace
But man reduces this attribute to foolish debate
May our conversations and our debates bring us ever closer to this God of the universe who holds all things in His hand. May they deepen our friendships and sharpen our minds while increasing our unity and fellowship. Amen.