Half a Bible

Just out of curiosity, I did a blog search for the word “sovereign” before starting this post. According to Google, the words “sovereign” or “sovereignty” are used in 110 of approximately 2,800 posts written by IC or me since 2013, roughly one in twenty-five. That’s not the total number of occurrences, only the total number of posts in which one or the other of these words occur. You can pretty much take it to the bank that every one of those references either explicitly affirms or harmonizes with the sovereignty of God as taught in the Bible.

That may seem odd for two students of scripture who expressly reject the doctrine of divine determinism.

Neo-Calvinists refer to people like us as “Arminians”, after a guy named Jacobus Arminius, who articulated a series of objections to the determinism of John Calvin in the early 17th century. I’ve never read a single word the man wrote nor, to the best of my knowledge, have I ever nicked an argument against deterministic theology from any of his followers, so I have no way of knowing whether calling me Arminian is an insult or a compliment in the grand scheme of things.

I also care very little about these sorts of theological labels, as you might have correctly inferred.

Observing the Differences

Let’s just say that we here at Coming Untrue very much believe in the sovereignty of almighty God. The Bible plainly teaches it and the history of the people of Israel displays it with such frequency and apparent enthusiasm that no legitimate theologian could mount a credible case against it. I can’t speak for Jacobus Arminius, but if you were to read his all writings without preconceived notions, I very much suspect you might even find history’s most notorious anti-Calvinist teaching that God is sovereign. Whatever he purposes he accomplishes, period, full stop.

What the vast majority of anti-determinists insist upon has nothing whatsoever to do with God’s sovereignty. We simply argue that along with the truth that God always accomplishes everything he sets out to do, the scriptures demand we acknowledge the reality of human responsibility. That is to say, whether we come before the judgment seat of Christ or the great white throne, when our works are examined, either good or bad, no objection will ever be raised that “God made me do it.”

You won’t get one from Joseph, and you won’t get one from either Potiphar or Potiphar’s wife.

All Events Whatsoever

The out-and-out determinist agrees with John Calvin that God’s sovereignty expresses itself in total control of every act that occurs:

“Those who have learned from the mouth of Christ that all the hairs of his head are numbered (Matthew 10:30), will … hold that all events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God.”

And again, from the Institutes of the Christian Religion:

“[God] so overrules all things that nothing happens without his counsel.”

I too believe that the hairs of my head are enumerated or counted (which is what the Greek word means), and that the Lord knows the grand total at any given moment. Unlike Mr. Calvin, I assume that statement means what it says … and no more. It tells me about God’s knowledge of every event, no matter how microscopic, that occurs within his universe. It does not say what Calvin wants it to say, which is that God makes my hair either fall out or cling to my scalp to correspond with a predetermined number of his choosing. Calvin liked to use words like “governed” and “overrules” as synonyms for “numbered”. I like to use … “numbered”. And there we must agree to disagree, especially since Mr. Calvin is long gone and cannot modify or further explain his position today. Having spoken with a few of his modern adherents, I question their ability to speak accurately or meaningfully on his behalf.

Two Agencies at Work

Many Christians today agree with Calvin’s extreme determinist doctrines because they do not understand the full implications of what Calvin was actually teaching. Let me illustrate it, if I may, from Genesis 39.

Genesis 39 tells the story of how Joseph went from slavery to an Egyptian prison. Ironically, he did so by behaving himself impeccably, demonstrating steadfast loyalty to both his master and his God. He was not the first devout man to be unreasonably treated by the world, and he certainly wasn’t the last. Joseph possessed the twin desirable characteristics of being physically attractive and competent, and he inadvertently provoked the envy and lust of Potiphar’s wife simply by being who he was.

In reading this passage, both Calvin and I would point out God’s intimate, personal involvement in the life of Joseph. The personal name of God (YHWH) appears a total of eight times in 23 verses: “The Lord was with Joseph”, “the Lord caused all that he did to succeed”, “the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake”. Neither I nor John Calvin have any difficulty with those words and the others like them. We would both affirm that God acted on Joseph’s behalf repeatedly during his career under Potiphar, influencing the situation so that Potiphar and his household thought well of Joseph.

That, by the way, is by no means a given. I have worked with many competent men and women in my life. Some were appreciated, some were not. Some got raises and promotions, others got laid off. In some instances, like when they encountered envious peers, their competence actually caused their career to stall out. Had they been less obviously brilliant in their performance, they would have been able to get on with it undisturbed. So then, the fact that God caused Joseph and his reputation to prosper is a separate issue from the question of whether his conduct was, in itself, meritorious. Keep that in mind as we proceed.

Language Ceasing to Operate

Merely ensuring Joseph’s performance was appreciated is not divine determinism as Calvin defined it. For the determinist, it is not enough to insist that a series of eight nouns and verbs demonstrate the involvement of God in what occurred. Everybody, including the “Arminians”, agrees with that. No, the determinist has to deny that a further set of nouns and verbs convey any human agency at all. For the true determinist, these cannot mean what they appear to say. So then, statements like “his master’s wife cast her eyes”, “she spoke”, “he refused”, “he would not listen”, “she caught him by his garment” and “he fled” are not affirmations that human beings are responsible before God to make good or bad choices, as they see fit. Rather, they are affirmations that God was pulling strings. For Calvin and his most devoted followers, if Joseph and Potiphar’s wife were making real choices that had real consequences, they would thereby diminish God’s sovereignty, and we can’t have that.

So then, the “Arminians” reading this passage affirm the truth of every word of scripture. The determinists affirm the truth of the statements made about God, but deny the validity of all statements made about the agency of others. In such cases, for the determinist, the English language ceases to operate as it does for everyone else. As he reads it, Joseph and Potiphar’s wife made no real choices, only the appearance of choice as God determined, probably from before the foundation of the world.

If Joseph was competent, wise or loyal, it was because God made it appear that way. If Potiphar’s wife was lustful, manipulative and deceptive, it was because God made her feel and do all the things she did. In a fully deterministic universe, loyalty is not to Joseph’s credit, and uncontrollable lust is not a discredit to the character of Potiphar’s wife. These are only appearances, after all. The real mystery is how God could righteously judge men and women who had no options, but we’re told we must not ask such questions.

In short, determinists have half a Bible. Non-determinists leave the text intact.

Two Thoughts

Two thoughts for your consideration:

(1) Both the God of the determinists and the God of the non-determinists somehow got Joseph to jail, from which he would ultimately prosper and fulfill the will of God in his day. But whose God is greater? Whose God is more sovereign? Whose God is more worthy of praise, glory and honor in accomplishing his purposes? Which God had to overcome a greater level of difficulty in getting his servant from Point A to Point B? Is it Calvin’s micromanager, who moves every piece on the chessboard by himself, or is it a God who can freely allow genuine agency while using human choice, good and bad, to accomplish his purposes? And can we even truly call Joseph a “servant” if he was only a pawn? These things speak for themselves.

(2) Who is being more faithful to the text? Is it the determinist, who affirms the creditable acts of God but not the creditable acts of Joseph and who implicitly blames God for the evil acts of evil people when scripture absolutely does not? Or is it the non-determinist who says praise or blame in each instance belong to those whose actions deserved them?

Again, the thing speaks for itself.