God At Odds

(Originally posted as a Facebook note, 8/2/09)

I heard something from a friend last night, after they’d been discussing those things that geeky theology-lovers talk about… The context of the conversation had something to do with Calvinism, and the idea came up went something like this: God has been eternally loving, since He has always existed in a self-giving Trinitarian relationship. But He has not always been sovereign in the sense of having a creation to reign over and control. God’s sovereignty came into play when He created a world with creatures and objects to be ruled over. So Calvinists get their soteriology wrong, because they overemphasize God’s sovereignty at the expense of His love, when in fact, God is more “essentially” loving rather than sovereign.

For the first few hours after hearing that, it just sounded so way out in left field that I couldn’t muster a response to it. But I was given some time, and here are my thoughts…

First, there is no need, either on the part of Calvinists or non-Calvinists to pit these attributes (or any attributes) of God against eachother. Like my brother pointed out, it’s not “either He’s more loving, or He’s more sovereign.” God exists simply, meaning that all of what makes Him God exists in perfect unity and equality. The same Bible that makes sweeping claims about His utter sovereignty over all of creation, kings, nations, animals, evil, free will, and history also affirms His majestic, sacraficial love for His creation in sustaining it and saving humans who turn in faith towards Jesus Christ. We can’t make the case biblically that God violates His sovereignty to show His love, or vice versa.

Second, I think it’s incorrect to say that the attribute of God’s love is eternal, while His sovereignty is not. God’s sovereignty is very connected to his aesity, or His self-existence. This means that God exists completely apart from any constraint to exist, is not responsible to or contingent on anything outside Himself; in short, God is free from anything outside Himself. God’s sovereignty, I think (this needs more thinking through) somewhat an extention of his aesity. In creation, God creates freely, but the act of creation does not introduce a new attribute into God’s array of character, but is only a display of his absolute freeness in acting however He wishes. God’s sovereignty is not contingent on there being a universe to direct and guide.

Third, it’s just not true that Calvinists, or at least those trying to be biblically balanced, are wild about God’s soverignty to the point of undermining His love. In fact, when it comes to soteriology, God’s love and His sovereignty work closely together. In fact, the love of God requires the sovereign action of God in enlightening anyone’s eyes to see that love for what it is.

In some ways, I find the Calvinistic take on the love of God to be more captivating and biblical than it’s opponents. It’s a love that “goes the distance,” that does not wait on the sidelines for ultimate decisive human action, but breaks through rebellious human hearts. Blogger Steve Hays has said it so well:

“[Arminians] … say that the Augustinian tradition subordinates the love of God to the will of God … But this is not what distinguishes the Augustinian tradition from the Arminian tradition. The distinction is between intensive and extensive love, between an intensive love that saves its loved ones, and an extensive love that loves everyone in general and saves no one in particular. Or if you really wish to cast this in terms of willpower, it’s the distinction between divine willpower and human willpower. Or, to put the two together, does God will the salvation of everyone with a weak-willed, ineffectual love, or does God love his loved ones with a resolute will that gets the job done?”