The book of Romans, among other portions of Scripture, teaches us much about the blessings of God's sovereign control, but Christians have often disagreed in important ways over this central biblical topic.
In the following dialogue, the editor of Credenda/Agenda, Douglas Wilson and Jack Cottrell, Professor of Theology at Cincinnati Bible Seminary, discuss the topic of God's sovereignty . Jack Cottrell, Ph.D. Princeton Seminary, M.Div. Westminster Theological Seminary, has written numerous books and articles, including discussions of the sovereignty of God in his book on providence, What the Bible Says About God the Ruler (College Press, 1985), and in Grace Unlimited and The Grace of God, The Will of Man ( both edited by Clark Pinnock). Dr. Cottrell is currently writing a commentary on the book of Romans.
Douglas Wilson speaks to the issues of God's sovereignty from a traditional Reformed perspective, and Jack Cottrell speaks from a traditional Arminian perspective. Each would say that he aims only to be faithful to Scripture.
DW: All Christians acknowledge that God is sovereign; we all like the term very much. Certainly no Christian would ever want to affirm that God is not sovereign. But what does it mean? Christians also concur that the concept involves just what the Bible says. But this just puts the question back a step. What exactly does the Bible say about the subject? To begin our discussion, I would like to submit that there are two aspects of divine sovereignty required by Scripture. The first is that God's sovereign decrees are restricted by nothing outside of Himself. The second is that His decrees are efficacious; they accomplish exactly what God intended in the decree.
JC: True, God's sovereign decrees are restricted by nothing outside Himself and are efficacious. But all God's works are not decrees (His decretive will). Through His unrestricted and efficacious decree to create, God initiated a system that includes free-will persons and impersonal forces (natural laws), both of which He permits to operate within the bounds of His sovereign control. He maintains this control through His omniscience (especially foreknowledge) and omnipotence, through which He can either prevent any potential event He so chooses, or permit it to happen (His permissive will). The ultimate measure of God's sovereignty is this absolute control over His creation, not His causation of every event within it via efficacious decrees.
DW: You say that God permits free will and natural law within the bounds of God's sovereign control. But how loose are the boundaries? Is God like a parent who sends the kids out to play so long as they "stay in the yard"? Or does He, through His foreknowledge and omnipotence, control all the movements of the kids in the yard? If the former, is it really proper to refer to this as "absolute control"? Unwanted things can happen inside the yard. But if it is the latter, then hasn't our debate turned into an intramural Reformed discussion over the mechanism of control? After all, what is the substantive difference between causation and control?
JC: The first yard analogy is deistic and unacceptable. The second is better, but "control" is ambiguous. Under a comprehensive, efficacious decree God "controls" all movements by planning and causing them. This connotation is unacceptable. Rather, God "controls" all things in the sense that He is in control of them. God does cause some things, to infallibly accomplish His purposes. But in most cases He honors the integrity of His own choice to create free-will creatures by permitting them to do even "unwanted things" (Matt. 23:37; 2 Pet. 3:9). Nevertheless, He is still in control since He can sovereignly prevent an intended act whenever desired (Lk. 12:19-20; James 4:13-15). This difference is truly substantive.
DW: We both agree that God permits certain "unwanted things" (Eph. 4:30). But this means that we also agree that God wants to permit these unwanted things. Thus, these permitted things are clearly not absolutely unwanted by Him. If God knows all things that will follow if He creates, and subsequently creates, then this act of creation reveals a decision that all downstream or dependent events will happen (Eph. 1:11). To illustrate, if He decides the plane will crash, then this is also a decision the passengers will too. We disagree only on whether to call this a decree. But whatever we call it, His sovereign decision to create predetermines all that follows from it (Matt. 10:29).
JC: What you say is true only if God's total foreknowledge of this particular world preceded His decision to create it. However, I affirm the opposite: God's decision to create this specific world of free-will beings preceded His foreknowledge of it (whether logically or chronologically is irrelevant). His foreknowledge of universal history is real, but it is the result of His decree to create this specific universe. Thus human choices are truly free, though God knows them in advance; but this does not mean that He wants every specific choice. What He wants is free-will beings, even at the risk that they choose the opposite of His desire and plan for them.
DW: If God's decree was in any way anterior to His foreknowledge, then His decree was blind -- but no less a determinative decree. If it is asserted that God determined to create this specific universe before He knew at all what would happen in it, then the biblical reply must be that this is entirely inconsistent with what Scripture teaches about His holiness, justice, and wisdom. Having blindly determined to create, it does follow that God might not want every specific choice made by us. Is it possible He might not want any specific choice? When God opened His eyes after His unalterable decree to create, did He say, "Oh no!" Is this Christian blind determinism?
JC: God's decree was determinative regarding His decision to create a universe governed by natural laws and including free-will persons. This is hardly determinism, which would imply that every event was predetermined by God. Nor is such a decree blind regarding the contingent events that would result from these laws and wills, since in His omniscience God knew in advance all the possible combinations of such contingencies. Thus He was not taken by surprise when His foreknowledge showed Him what was actually going to happen. Also, He had preplanned the process of redemption through Christ to deal with the worst contingency if needed. This understanding magnifies, rather than negates, God's holiness, justice, and wisdom.
DW: In other words, you are saying God considered all natural-law/free-will contingent universes, say A-Z. Having arranged safety nets, He then closed His eyes, and when it was sufficiently dark, He predetermined which one would come to pass (say, M). But this means the difference between us is not whether God predetermined the universe, but rather whether He knew what He was doing when He predetermined it. It appears to me that this array of contingent universes, from which God randomly selected one, is a paradigm far removed from the plain statements of Scripture. We serve the one "who works all things according to the counsel of His will. . . (Eph. 1:11).
JC: You are determined to see determinism even where none exists. First, do not confuse my view with one called "middle knowledge." Though God knows all possible universes that could eventuate from His initial decision to make free-will creatures, the universe that actually unfolds is not pre-selected (predetermined) by Him. Upon His decision to create, He simply foreknows the one that will unfold, and works His own saving purposes into, through, and out of it. Second, Ephesians 1:11 does not mean that God is the initiating (predetermining) cause of every specific event; rather, via His foreknowledge and sovereign power He fits all things into His ultimate purpose for the creation (cf. Rom. 8:28).
DW: I understand you are not claiming God selected universe M, knowing at the time it would be universe M. You are claiming that God created universe M, not knowing for sure that His action would result in universe M. Like a gambler with big dice, He didn't know what would happen -- but He knew what the possibilities were. But it still has to be shown how ignorance of future details on His part keeps the creative act from being predeterminative. His ignorance notwithstanding, it is still the gambler's throw which determines the result. In creating, God determined the universe that is; we are discussing whether He did it blindly or intelligently.
JC: The dice analogy is false, dice being passive and inert and receiving all their motion from the thrower. Free-will creatures, however, are personal beings who are able to create their own choices. The Creator certainly seeks to influence these choices, but He does not predetermine them in any way. A closer analogy is a couple who risk "making" a child. Once done, they influence it all they can, but the child ultimately chooses for itself. As with parents, God's decision to create free-will beings entailed a risk. But God immediately foreknew its outcome, and planned in advance how to weave the threads of His redemptive purpose into the tapestry of foreknown human decisions.
DW: If the dice analogy is false for such reasons, then what can we say of the biblical analogy of the Potter and the pots (Is. 29:16; Jer. 18:4-6)? Clay is passive too. Your analogy of potential parents taking "a risk" does not really meet the case. In order to fit your earlier commitments, the parents would have to determine the range of all possible children, determine everything they would do with each possible child, determine everything they would do for each possible combination of choices made by each child, conceive a child blindly, and immediately know that child's final destiny. This meets the case, but it also illustrates how God in creation predetermines "whatsoever comes to pass."
JC: Pressing my analogy beyond the single point of risk is unwarranted. Your penultimate sentence obviously does not apply to parents, though it fairly summarizes what I have said about God. However, your last sentence does not follow from the preceding one. A creature's choices are his own. God does not predetermine them; He reacts to them. The clay analogy illustrates God's absolute Lordship as Creator, and His sovereign control over people and nations even when they consciously and actively rebel against Him (as in Isa. 29:16; 45:9; Rom. 9:1-20). Its main point is to show God's right and ability to choose, use, and dismiss Israel collectively, as a nation , according to His will and purpose.
DW: You granted earlier that God's "foreknowledge is the result of His decree to create this specific universe." We therefore agree God created this specific universe. This means the subsets of this specific universe were created by God. God would not create ten apples without creating the third one. So this specific universe is the sum of its parts, including our free choices. One free-will choice going the other way would have meant another specific universe. In creating this universe, God created the choices it contains. Blindly or not, He did it, and not we ourselves. We agree determinism implies every event is predetermined. You have not explained why this excludes your position.
JC: On the contrary, I have explained this over and over, in plain words. Yes, determinism implies every event is predetermined. Yes, God created this specific universe. But "this specific universe" includes creatures with truly free will. Thus some "subsets" of this specific universe (i.e., events flowing from free choices) are not created by God, but in a real sense are created by the creatures themselves. Thus every event in this specific universe is not predetermined. After God created this one specific universe, it could have developed in countless ways, depending on the choices made by free creatures. I regret this exchange never got past the definition stage, but as long as you kept labelling me a determinist, we had nothing substantive to discuss.
DW: I do not really share your regret; many debated subjects, this included, need much work at the definition stage. You say after God created this "specific universe, it could have developed in countless ways." But I thought we agreed it could only develop in one way, as seen in His foreknowledge. You agreed that after God creates, then He foreknows at a time when He was the only agent. If the future were unsettled, it could not be foreknown. If foreknown, then it was settled by God.
Finally, let me say what a great privilege it was to debate such a Christian gentleman. Thank you.
