Is “Sovereign” the Best Descriptor for God? by Paul D. Miller, political scientist, RAND Corporation What does it mean to say that God is sovereign? The refrain has become so common, almost clichéd, in Reformed writing and preaching that it sometimes slips away from the reader or listener without lodging meaning in the mind. Worse, we typically hear the phrase to mean something it doesn't. When Christians affirm that "God is sovereign," they often mean "God is in control." Paul Tripp, for example, wrote in his excellent book Lost in the Middle that "God truly is sovereign…there is no situation, relationship, or circumstance that is not controlled by our heavenly Father." The problem is that the English word sovereignty does not mean control. The U. S. government is sovereign within American territory, but that doesn't mean the government controls everything within American borders or causes all that happens. If you look up sovereignty in the dictionary you'll not find control in the definition—nor even as a synonym in a thesaurus. Sovereignty means "rightful authority." A dictionary gives "supreme rank" as one definition, and a thesaurus lists jurisdiction and dominion as synonyms. The doctrine of God's sovereignty tells us God is the rightful ruler of the universe. He has legitimate claim to lordship. His government is just. In fact, justice is defined as his rule. God's sovereignty doesn't tell us whether God does in fact rule—just that he ought to, and that we should acknowledge his rule and obey it. English Bible translations don't often employ the word sovereign to describe God. The most frequent place is in the NIV rendering of Ezekiel, which uses the phrase "the Sovereign LORD" more than 200 times. But the Hebrew for that phrase is more accurately translated "LORD Yahweh" or "King Yahweh." Most English Bibles oddly follow the tradition of translating the personal name of God as "LORD" in all capital letters, which means they have to find another word to translate what would normally be "Lord," lest they translate it "Lord LORD." Thus, we get "the Sovereign LORD," an accurate paraphrase but not an exact translation. (Notably, the ESV renders the phrase "the Lord GOD.") Deeply Personal The Bible describes God as King and Lord. Though it is accurate to describe God as sovereign, I wonder if using that word rather than King tends to depersonalize his rule. A sovereign can be an institution, like the government. A king is a person. We relate to our contemporary secular sovereign governments as a citizen subject to an impersonal array of bureaucracies. But in premodern times subjects related to their Lord and King in a deeply personal way: with love, fear, reverence, and awe. I speculate that theologians began describing God as sovereign rather than King or Lord after the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution when monarchy began to fall out of favor and notions of popular sovereignty began to take root. Telling good republicans and social contractarians to worship a divine King might have been unpopular in 18th-­‐ and 19th-­‐century Britain and America. I have no research to back that up that assertion except for the observation that the King James and Geneva Bibles don't use the word at all, and the Wycliffe Bible only sparingly, while 2oth-­‐century versions like the NIV, Good News, and New Living Translations use it hundreds of times. Once again, it is true God is sovereign. It's also true he's in control of everything that happens and he causes all that happens. But that is the doctrine of God's providence, not his sovereignty. The doctrine of divine sovereignty tells us he should rule. The doctrine of divine providence tells us that he does, in fact, rule. The Lord governs and guides all of creation for his people and for his glory. "All things work for the good of those who love God," Paul writes (Rom. 8:28). God's providence, then, is a function of his omnipotence: he is able to rule all things because he is all-­‐powerful. We may be splitting hairs, but the Bible splits these same hairs. Scripture gives us specific words to describe God's character, and we should be careful to use those words correctly. We may be losing a small nuance when we opt for the impersonal word sovereignty over the more literal and personal words Lord or King. And in either case, we shouldn't confuse God's sovereignty (or lordship) with his providence. The two characteristics complement one another, as do all of God's attributes. God's providence is just because he is the rightful King, and God's reign is enacted through his providence. How is God Working in the World? Understanding Miracles and Providence by Justin Holcomb, professor, RTS & GCTS The pages of the Bible are filled with miraculous acts of God, and those who believe in the trustworthiness of Scripture surely believe in miracles. Yet today, when someone claims to have witnessed a miracle, even evangelical Christians tend to chuckle inside, perhaps attributing the "miracle" to an overactive imagination or the advancements of modern science. We are faced with a difficult paradox: on the one hand, we long for miraculous signs and wonders like those in Scripture, but often when we see or hear of events worthy of being called "miraculous" we struggle to overcome our modern skepticism. Has God ceased to work in the world the way he did in biblical times? In order to answer this question, we need to develop a theology of miracles that will help us rightly understand the way God works in the world today so that we avoid the extremes of making everything a miracle, on the one hand, or allowing nothing to be a miracle, on the other. We need to determine what a miracle is and is not. Wrong Views of Miracles Many false views of miracles persist today. For example, some people believe God created the world like a watch that just needed to be wound up, only to be left alone, operating according to a set of natural laws. In this view, God isn't usually involved in the world, and miracles are those times when he chooses to interrupt the laws of nature. But this view squeezes God out of any ordinary, providential sustainment of the created order. That is, it assumes God doesn't normally act in creation, which, as we'll see, is not biblical. A second wrong view of miracles also tries to squeeze any divine action out of the world, but in a different way. This view suggests that there are really no such things as miracles because, by definition, miracles violate the laws of nature. However, because we don't have an exhaustive understanding of the laws of nature, how can we be sure any given miracle did in fact violate some such law? Ironically, this position happily admits some things that happen in the world surpass our comprehension—it just attributes those mysteries to science rather than to God. The opposite of the second perspective is the "God of the gaps" view, which basically attributes anything we don't presently understand to the miraculous power of God. Rather than explaining an extraordinary event by "mere science," the "God of the gaps" view explains any gap in scientific knowledge by divine existence or action. But as scientific knowledge grows, and the gaps in our knowledge shrink, so does the God who supposedly filled them. Yet another wrong view of miracles turns every mundane action of God in the world into an extraordinary miracle. Michael Horton describes this view well in The Christian Faith: In reaction against naturalism, it is often asserted by Christians that God is in fact involved regularly in the course of their lives in the form of miracles. Starved for some practical sense of God's concern for their daily lives, many Christians flock to groups and individuals promising them a daily encounter with miracles. What is lost in the bargain is a sense of God's ordinary providence in and through creaturely means and natural processes that he has created and sustains. (368)1 That is, some Christians are so worried that modern secularism has no place for God that they overcompensate, calling everything extraordinary that happens a miracle. But when everything is a miracle, nothing is a miracle. Miracles vs. Providence One of the most basic Christian beliefs is that God—as the creator, sustainer, and redeemer of all life in the universe—
acts in, on, and through that which he has created. In one sense, the entire Bible is an account of miracle after miracle—
of God's continual special working in creation to redeem and restore a covenant people for himself. The Westminster Confession states this point succinctly: "God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy." So what is a miracle, and how is a miracle distinguishable from regular divine action? How can we maintain both a 1 Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011). All Horton quotes in this article can be found in The Christian Faith. robust understanding of general divine providence and special divine intervention in miracles? In order to understand miracles rightly, Christians must account for God's everyday sustaining providence. According to Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology, "A miracle is a less common kind of God's activity in which he arouses people's awe and wonder and bears witness to himself" (355). Or, as Horton puts it, "Unlike God's ordinary providence, his miraculous intervention involves a suspension or alteration of natural laws and processes in particular circumstances" (368). Notice both of these definitions of miracles presuppose that God is already involved in creation continually. God is involved in the world through more than just miracles; even natural processes can be attributed to divine agency. As Horton observes, "When a burn heals, it is God who heals it through the natural processes with which he has richly endowed and so carefully attends it" (369). When we understand that God providentially guides and sustains our everyday lives, the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" fades. Horton explains: We frequently distinguish natural and supernatural causes, but this too may reflect the false choice of attributing circumstances either to God or to nature. The Scriptures know nothing of a creation or a history that is at a single moment independent of God's agency. The question is not whether God is involved in every aspect of our lives but how God is involved. Therefore, with respect to providence, the question is never whether causes are exclusively natural or supernatural, but whether God's involvement in every moment is providential or miraculous. (369, italics original) "Interventionist" views of divine action see any activity of God as miraculous, diminish God's providential guidance, and create too strong a dichotomy between God's agency and creaturely agency. In contrast, a view that sees miracles as a special instance of God's activity acknowledges that "even in his miraculous activity God usually works through creaturely means, but he sanctifies them for extraordinary service" (368). To be disappointed at not seeing "Bible-­‐like" miracles in our own lives is to misunderstand the significance of God's providential care over creation. "Not only when God intervenes extraordinarily, suspending his natural order, but in his design and faithfulness to that order, we have reason to give thanks," Horton writes. "Not only when one's cancer mysteriously disappears, but when it is conquered through the countless layers of creaturely mediation, ultimately God is the healer" (369). Whether we experience God's power in an obviously miraculous way, such as a healing, or simply through his providential guiding of a surgeon's hands, God is equally near to us, for "in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:27-­‐28). Creation Ex Nihilo, by Derek Thomas, senior minister, Frist Presbyterian Church, Columbia, SC No sentence is more pregnant with meaning than the opening one of the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). It tells us several things all at once, four of which are worth reflecting upon: First and foremost, it tells us that God is the ultimate Being. Before there was a universe, there was God. He exists independently of matter and sequence of time. God transcends space and time. He is not limited by spatial considerations (He is everywhere in His fullness continually). Nor is He locked into the present in any way. It is not strictly accurate to say that before the universe was created there was “nothing,” for this, too, is a spatial and temporal idea: before the created universe existed, there was God. Theologians speak of God’s immensity, infinity, and transcendence to describe this and our minds race at the thought of it, unable to take it in. All we can do is acquiesce and worship. Second, everything that exists originates from God. Genesis employs a special Hebrew verb for the act of creation (bārā’) the subject of which is always God. No other subject is employed or implied. Man, too, “creates” (poetry, music, literature, architectural wonders, for example) but not in this sense. “To create” is exclusively an act of God, and by employing it in the first and last verse of the creation story (1:1 and 2:4), the writer is employing something that looks like “bookends” that encase the central idea that God is at work. Easy as this is to write (and read!), try to imagine the power it takes to bring into existence the entire cosmos! Third, He creates “out of nothing.” A grammatical possibility has given rise to at least one translation of the opening verses suggesting that when God began His work of creation, matter already existed: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void” (nrsv). Contrast that with the English Standard Version: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void.” The point of this second rendition is to emphasize a crucial issue that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo). Other ancient Near Eastern creation stories (from Egypt and Mesopotamia, for example) assume that their gods worked with material that already existed. However, biblical testimony here and elsewhere insists that at the point of the beginning there was nothing apart from God (Heb. 11:3; Rev. 4:11), and what exists apart from God was brought into being by Him. Fourth, and this is particularly interesting, that which He initially creates is not its final form. He creates in order to employ further artistry and design. Beginners in Hebrew at seminaries can often be heard repeating a phrase from Genesis 1:2: “The earth was without form and void.” What God initially brought into being was “tōhu vabōhu,” “formless and empty mass.” Initially, the created universe had no distinctive shape; its structure would be formed by the artistry and design of God. In this sense, we are like God. We, too, fashion and mold and make things that are often beautiful. It is, in part, what Genesis 1:26–27 means by saying that Adam was created “in the image of God.” Man, too, creates, or better, re-­‐creates, shapes his environment in such a way as to reflect something pleasing and good. Once man fell, this capacity became as much a liability as a blessing: his capacity to fashion became a means to idolatry. What should we make of this? Again, several responsive features are worth consideration, but two will suffice here: In the first place, God is to be worshiped as the Creator; creation is to be viewed as a reflection of the signature of God. “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1). “O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures” (Ps. 104:24). We live out our lives in a world that He has created and sustains. All around us and within us there are fingerprints betraying His handiwork. Knowing this…should make us live dependently, reverently, and expectantly. In the second place, creation is never to be viewed as inherently evil (as some philosophies have taught). God intends in His plan of salvation to re-­‐create this fallen world and provide for His redeemed children “a new heavens and new earth” in which to live. Even now, the present creation waits (8:19) — subjected to futility as it has been by sin (Rom. 8:20) — groaning in sounds that resemble childbirth (8:22), for the “new world” (Matt 19:28), the home of the righteous (2 Peter 3:13). The resurrected redeemed will thus dwell in a (transformed) physical universe in union and communion with their resurrected Lord. This strand of biblical teaching ensures that we never view creation (and our physical bodies) apart from God’s claim of ownership and demand for holiness. We are, as Paul insists, to present our “bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” as an act of “spiritual worship” (Rom. 12:1). The story of creation signals that we are God’s handiwork — made by Him and for Him and that (through redemption) forever.2 2 From Ligonier Ministries and R.C. Sproul. © Tabletalk magazine. Website: www.ligonier.org/tabletalk. Email: [email protected]. Toll free: 1-­‐800-­‐435-­‐4343. Why the Doctrine of Election is Precious to Me by Juan Sanchez, senior pastor, High Pointe Baptist Church, Austin, TX For some the doctrine of election (God’s free and sovereign decision to choose a people for salvation from the foundation of the world-­‐Ephesians 1:3-­‐6) is an abominable thought that produces great fear and concern. However, I propose that a clear understanding of this doctrine should instead produce hope and assurance. Allow me to share some of the reasons why the doctrine of election is so precious to me. The doctrine of election is precious to me because it is biblical. In a display of the Father’s love for the Son, He gives a specific people to the Son (John 6:37). This truth is evident in the testimony of the book of Revelation when it declares that the only ones entering the eternal heaven are those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life (Revelation 21:27). John further testifies in Revelation 13:8, that these names were written in this book before the foundation of the world. In other words, one fruit of the Father’s love for Jesus, is our salvation. The Father made a free and sovereign decision to save a people as a gift for the Son and for His own glory from the foundation of the world (see also John 8:47; John 10:26-­‐29; Romans 9:10-­‐16). The doctrine of election is precious to me because it secures my salvation. Jesus declared that all that the Father gave Him would come to Him and that He would never cast out any who came to Him (John 6:37). Jesus delights in receiving and keeping those whom the Father gives Him because He came to do the Father’s will (John 6:38-­‐40), and the Father’s will is that Jesus not lose any of the ones that the Father has given Him but that He raise them all up on the last day (John 6:39). The doctrine of election is precious to me because it encourages me to pursue holiness. Paul reminded the Thessalonians “God chose you as the first fruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13, ESV). The Bible assures us that even though now we are only gradually being conformed to the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18), we will at glorification be completely conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29). The doctrine of election is precious to me because it is the basis for assurance of my salvation. Because God gives a people to the Son, and because the Son receives that people and keeps them, I am assured that I will never be cast out (John 6:37), nor perish, nor be snatched out of Jesus’ hand (John 10:28). Can you imagine such assurance? The God who predestines for salvation (election) will insure that all whom He calls to salvation will ultimately be glorified (Romans 8:30). The doctrine of election is precious to me because it encourages me to share the gospel and gives me hope for fruit in evangelism and missions. Not only does the Father give a people to the Son (John 6:37), and not only does the Son receive these people and keep them (John 6:37-­‐39), but the Father also assures that those whom He gives to the Son will come to the Son. It is the Father’s will that everyone believing in the Son have eternal life (John 6:40), and these who believe can only come at the Father’s drawing (John 6:44, 65). Therefore, if the Father gives a people to the Son, and He assures these people come to the Son, then we can be assured that evangelism and missions will bear fruit (Acts 13:48), and we can find encouragement in our Lord’s words to Paul, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.” (Acts 18:9-­‐10, ESV). Finally, the doctrine of election is precious to me because it moves me to make much of God through Christ (true worship) and little of myself (humility). May we understand election and may it strip us of personal pride and move us to worship the Sovereign Lord in all His glory and grace.