Introduction
The doctrine of providence has been studied from the beginning and the general consensus of earliest theologians, to include Augustine, was that “God preserves and governs the world.”[1] Centuries later, theologian John Calvin further developed this theology in order to provide comfort for the persecuted during the Protestant Reformation. Towards the end of this perilous time, theologian Jacob Arminius, based on the study of Dirck Koornert, developed the doctrine of Arminianism.7 This doctrine is not only congruent with both the biblical metanarrative and God’s character but is also the view of this author.
Explanation of Different Viewpoints on THE PROVIDENCE DEBATE
The two main viewpoints of God’s providence rests with two of the most well known theologians of their time, John Calvin and Jacob Arminius. While one view was devised amongst fear, confusion, persecution, and death, the other was arrived at within the academic setting.
The world that Calvin (1509 – 1564) grew up in was riddled with pain and suffering. Born in 1509, he studied in Paris, France. Parting with the Roman Catholic Church for unknown reasons, he joined the ranks with the Protestants in 1534, giving up his ecclesiastical seat and only revenue stream. Once the persecution began, he went into exile in Basil, Switzerland. While in exile, Calvin tried to clarify the faith of the church in those confused times through the publishing of the “Institutes of the Christian Faith”. [2] According to the Calvin Commentary, “the only proper question under the circumstances was, ‘what did God intend by their suffering?’”[3] God’s elect needed to know that “God was at the helm” and that this storm was not out of control.[4]
Calvin held that even with man’s fallen state and Satan constantly running to and fro, God was fully in control and meant all things for the greater good, even if God’s elect did not currently see it.4 Calvin’s reference point for his view regarding God’s providence is found in Matt 10:28, Luke 12:5, and Matt 10:29. In the words of Calvin, these passages espouse the following:
And fear not those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. And yea, I say to you, fear him. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And not one of them shall fall to the ground without your father.[5]
Calvin espouses that anyone that fears man as though God is not providing His protection is a fool. Furthermore, Christ declares God’s providence over all creation without affirming the teaching of the Stoics. Lastly, while conceding that there is a level of chance in life, Calvin refutes the idea that the world along with humanity is out of control. God extends His hand over creation with regard to both general and special providence. [6]
Arminius (1559 – 1609) arrived on the theological scene in quite a different era than that of John Calvin. Pastor and professor, Arminius was asked to refute Dirck Koornert, a theologian that rejected Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. He gave much effort in reviewing the theology of Koornert only to be forced to concede Dirck’s persuasion. As a professor, Arminius did not hide his views, but spoke openly enough to offend a colleague, Francis Gomarus, who was a disciplined proponent of the Calvinistic view of predestination.[7] While Gomarus held that Christ followers are chosen solely based upon His sovereign will, Arminius proclaimed that they are called to Christ because through God’s foreknowledge, He knew that they would possess saving faith.[8]
Arminianism took on many different forms as a variety of theologians and pastors grappled with this new view of providence. According to theologian Berkhof, Arminianism is a proponent of Deism; thereby, holding onto Palagianism’s characteristic that God created and then departed humanity, thus allowing them to work their lives out on there own.[9] In some circumstances, Arminianism led to the teaching that all debt was paid, everyone had already been reconciled with the Father. Karl Barth taught this, believing that it was our duty as Christians to tell all. He believed that all men would be saved. Conversely, Spurgeon taught that “ . . . if it was Christ’s intention to save every man, how deplorably has he been disappointed . . .”[10]
In an effort to reign in the many variants of Arminianism, He and his followers developed the Remonstrance, which were five written articles solidifying their doctrine. These articles stated that God died for all men and will save whoever believes, while the debt has been paid, no one can enjoy the forgiveness of sins lest they believe, outside of Christ men cannot do anything “good” in Gods eyes, men have the ability to resist God’s grace and love, and finally, the matter of whether men “can fall away and be lost” is lacking biblical evidence either for or against; therefore, further study must be completed before a decision can be made.[11] This would prove not to suffice some crowds as he was later harassed by officials of several different synods, as well as through slanderous letters circulated allegedly by Hernerus Helmischius, a co-pastor in Amsterdam.[12]
In November of 1618, the Synod of Dort was called to refute Arminianism, thus giving birth to the TULIP acrostic. These five doctrines, that which the remonstrant could not accept, stated that election was not based on God’s foreknowledge, but his will; He died only for the elect; while there is a shadow of goodness in all men, original sin has so corrupted it that it cannot be properly used; God’s love and grace is irresistible; and since believers are the elect of God, their faith will preserver till the end.[13]
Discussion of Personal Viewpoint on THE PROVIDENCE DEBATE
The overarching question that is raised between these arguments is this, how much ethical control does God excerpt over His creation and why? In answering this question, this author desires to discover the biblical viewpoint outside of positional bias. Exegetical attention will be given to the themes of “God’s providence in human history” as well as His providence in preparation “for the completion of His ultimate purpose.”[14]
God can be seen exercising his will throughout human history. In Habakkuk 1:12, the prophet proclaims that God has chosen Babylon to execute judgment on Judah.[15] Reading on into the text, we see that even God’s prophet exhibits an advanced understanding of theology proper while lamenting about how such a good and pure God could do this. If one looks at the purpose of this book, they will see that the author learns faith and eventually triumphs. God responds to the author, telling him “my ways are not your ways”. According to Hindson and Yates, “His sovereign purposes were beyond human understanding and could not be reduced to Habakkuk’s simplistic formulas regarding who was most deserving of judgment.”[16]
God chooses to allow spirits to entice leaders in order to carry out His sovereign will. In I Kings 22:19-20, we see this as the scriptures tell us that God allows a spirit to speak lies through the prophets in order to entice Ahab into war with Ramoth, in order to be killed in action fulfilling the prophecy God wishing to eliminate Ahab, whose death has already been predicted in 1 Kings 20:41–43; 21:17–29.[17] According to chapter 21, there was a reason that God had him killed. Also, God allowed King Ahab to be warned through Micaiah telling him beforehand as to what God had chosen to do and what was going to happen because of it.
Isaiah records in 10:15-6 that God indeed utilizes nations as instruments to shape the course of time. Not only that but keeps his instruments in check, so that they are not able to go outside of God’s divine mission and vision. From this, God’s people can infer that even though at times God wills divine judgment, they can trust that He is in control of the Nations and will not let Assyria go beyond His intended purpose.[18]
Isaiah also portrays God as emotionally vulnerable to His people; thereby, exhibiting that sometimes things do not go the way that God would like it to go. In 63:10, it states, “they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit.” (NIV) God had delivered His people out of Egypt and rather than talk about what God had done for them, they bragged about what they had done! According to the New American Commentary, “God did not expect his people to deal falsely with him.”[19] This theme is congruent with the New Testament as well. (Eph. 4:30)
According to Gregory Boyd’s argument for the Arminian view, it is stated, “the biblical narrative reveals that God gives people choice of whether to follow him.”[20] An example of this comes from the love life of King Solomon. Although God had given explicit instruction not to intermarry, the King chose to take for himself over 700 wives, which led him astray. (I Kings 11) Because of this, God vowed to put the kingdom under different leadership so as to preserve his divine will.
God can be seen moving towards the fulfillment of His ultimate purpose as well. God’s ultimate purpose is two fold: first, He is moving towards restoring all of creation and secondly, His desire is to dwell among His people. This has been foretold in Revelation 21:2-8 when God gave Apostle Paul a vision of things to come. Paul also spoke of it in his letter to the church of Ephesus, 1:9-10 when he stated that God’s divine and good will is that heaven and earth will be brought together under the kingship of Christ.
God’s providence over the entire creation is summed up in Romans 11:36, “For from him and through him and for him are all things . . .” (NIV) Paul is able to look back at the scriptures and realize a metanarrative, seeing God’s plan further illuminated. At this realization, Paul is left with only words of praise and adoration.
From this study, this author must conclude that God is in complete control of His creation, although he chooses to withhold a portion of that control from His people, thus providing free will. This fits best with the Arminianism point of view.
There are many refutations to this view; however, the most prominent one is that, “the Bible argues against self-determining freedom.”[21] Verses used to support this claim are obviously interpreted through a bias paradigm. Psalm 135:6 declares that, “the Lord does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths.” (NIV) While this verse does state that God controls all things, a parts-whole spiral of the biblical metanarrative reveals that God chooses to not only to refrain from controlling His people, but that in some instances his will can be changed. (Ex. 32:14)
Conclusion
During the time of John Calvin, the Roman Catholic Church acted as an active aggressor towards the Protestants, beginning with Martin Luther. Theologian John Calvin worked diligently to provide comfort and guidance through literature that ensured God’s elect that He was indeed in complete control of all things. Culturally, the views would begin to shift, providing Arminius a slightly different context in which to theologize that God’s control was self limited in nature.[22] These opposing views met at the Synod of Dort, only to have Arminianism refuted, thus creating the TULIP acrostic. As presented, the view of this author regarding the nature of God’s providence is Arminian. As God’s people, we can rest soundly knowing that God is working to complete his ultimate purpose of restoring the earth and His people to himself.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barker, Kenneth L. Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. Vol. 20. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 6th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Banner of Truth, 1959.
Boyd, Gregory A. and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.
Hindson, Ed, and Gary Yates, eds. The Essence of the Old Testament: a Survey. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012.
House, Paul R. 1, 2 Kings. Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 1995.
González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. 2nd ed. 2 vols. New York: HarperOne, 2010.
Gunter, W. Stephen. Arminius and His Declaration of Sentiments: an Annotated Translation with Introduction and Theological Commentary. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012.
Lutzer, Erwin. The Doctrines that Divide. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998.
Manser, Martin H. Dictionary of Bible Themes. London: Martin Manser, 2009.
Smith, Gary V. Isaiah 1–39. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. The New American Commentary. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2007
[1] L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 165.
[2] The Story of Christianity. rev. and updated, 2nd ed. 2 vols. New York: HarperOne, 2010, 79.
[3] Joseph Haroutunian and Louise Pettibone Smith, Calvin: Commentaries (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), 39.
[4] Ibid., 40.
[5] Joseph Haroutunian and Louise Pettibone Smith, Calvin: Commentaries (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), 264.
[6] Ibid., 265 – 6.
[7] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, 2nd ed., vol. 2, The Reformation to the Present Day (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 229.
[8] Ibid., 230.
[9] Ibid., 167.
[10] Erwin W. Lutzer, The Doctrines That Divide: A Fresh Look at the Historic Doctrines That Separate Christians (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 184.
[11] Ibid., 178.
[12] W. Stephen Gunter, Arminius and His Declaration of Sentiments: an Annotated Translation with Introduction and Theological Commentary (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012), 97.
[13] The Story of Christianity. rev. and updated, 2nd ed. 2 vols. New York: HarperOne, 2010, 232.
[14] Martin H. Manser, Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical Studies (London: Martin Manswer, 2009).
[15] Kenneth L. Barker and Waylon Bailey, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 1999), 313.
[16] Ed Hindson and Gary Yates, eds., The Essence of the Old Testament: a Survey (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012), 418.
[17] Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings, vol. 8, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 237.
[18] Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 40-66: an Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (New American Commentary) (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009), 260.
[19] Ibid., 672.
[20] Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009), 41.
[21] Ibid., 44.
[22] Sharon Rusten with E. Michael, The Complete Book of When & Where in the Bible and Throughout History (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2005), 215.
Brandon Frank 