Reply:

One point in response to this excellent question: Someone might argue that (a) God's sovereignty is his freedom, power, and authority to do anything which is logically possible and which is consistent with God's perfect goodness, and (b) that there is a great good for which God's granting us libertarian free choice is a logically necessary condition (namely, a deeper kind of relation to God), and, hence, God's controlling all events is not consistent with God's perfect goodness and, for this reason, not within the scope of his sovereignty. But suppose someone is not satisfied with that conception of sovereignty and insists that God's freedom, power, and authority is limited only by logical necessity. Given this second conception of divine sovereignty, any insistence by a theologian or philosopher that God must control all events is a tacit denial of God's sovereignty. To say God is sovereign on this view entails that he has absolute control over his policy decisions. But to require that God control all events is to remove his control over his basic policy decisions. I.e., it is logically impossible that God, of necessity, control all events and that he be sovereign (on this second conception). Necessarily, if, of necessity, God controls all events, then God is not free to adopt as a policy decision to allow libertarian free choices. But if God is free to determine his basic policy decision about whether or not to control all events, then he may freely choose to do so. But if his choice in this matter is to be free--which it must be if God is to be sovereign in this second sense--then we cannot infer his control of all events from his omnipotence, omniscience, his being a maximally perfect being, or from any other divine attribute. Presumably we could only know what his free decision is in this matter by revelation. If we approach scripture with an open mind as to how God, at this highest level of policy decision, has exercised his sovereignty, then I think scripture witnesses to God's having sovereignly granted libertarian freedom to us. So on either a more restricted view of divine sovereignty (restricted both by logical necessity and by God's perfect goodness) or a less restricted view (restricted only by logical necessity), an argument can be mounted that divine sovereignty is compatible with the view that God does not control all events.

Larry Lacy

Reply to Lacy:

Mr Lacy,

One follow up question, Do you feel that we place too much a responsibility on logic and our own understanding of God with this view? How can we apply our logic and reason to God? It seems to me that God is beyond our human understanding, and logic. I agree with your view, but how can I Biblically support your position? What sort of examples can I give to people?

Thanks for your time!

Aaron

Reply to Aaron:

Aaron,

This is a good and pretty basic question. I think at least one fundamental law is inescapable--the principle of noncontradiction, the view that for any proposition P it is impossible for both P and not-P to be true. It looks as though acknowledgement of this principle is essential to an affirmation. What would it be to say "God exists and God does not exist at one and the same time, when the words used twice mean exactly the same in both uses? How would that be different from affirming the existence of God and then taking it back? Also if one denies this principle of noncontradiction then it would seem to be in order to affirm, "God is not subject to the laws of logic and God is subject to the laws of logic." If we grant that the law of noncontradiction true even when our affirmations are about God, what reason could we have for denying this for other logical principles? One final point. All we need say is that our affirmations about God are subject to the laws of logic.

Larry Lacy