Josh Pound, one of Myk Habets’ former students in Kiwi-land, recently asked in a
comment thread this:
I want to understand the sovereignty of God in harmony with his plan to redeem and unite humanity to himself in Christ.
I want to understand his sovereignty in harmony with his loving nature, and his intention for communion with humanity.
Here’s how I attempted to sketch an answer:
I think who God is as Triune Love, as eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in filial communion and thus union must be seen as definitive of the being of God. If this is so, in contrast to classically and philosophically construed [constructions] of Godβs being, then we will understand his sovereignty as shaped by this kind of life; i.e. love. So in the βECβ sense, God has always been Father Son and Holy Spirit, but not always creator; he became Creator because of who he is as love, and thus he desired a counterpoint (I stole this point from Myk) to shower his love on (which is in accord with his nature as other focused); and who in reciprocating way loves him back (with his own love mediated through the priestly humanity of Christ for us see I Jn 4.19). Typical accounts of Godβs sovereignty are informed by philosophical reflection that think of God in cold, abstract and impersonal ways. Like Thomas Aquinas; he conceived of God (along with Aristotle) as the Creator by nature, and the reason why God created in his account (and the classical account) was simply because thatβs what he does, heβs the Creator after all, and the creator creates. As you can see in this oversimplified sketch there is no deference given to God as triune love, instead creation is just done in determinative fashion; he doesnβt create because he wants someone to share his life of love with, he creates because thatβs what he does (arbitrarily so). And so in this classical account, if what I am saying is true, then God will relate to us in accord with who he is as Creator; a set of Stoic like hard deterministic categories will be constructed and God will relate to us in mechanistic and absolute/static ways. This gives some background on how and why I would go with an βECβ account of understanding Godβs sovereignty and creative activity (which is something that was new for God, just as the incarnation was) as shaped by his life of love.
That’s all for now :-).
Hey Bobby, I think that you have sketched a good answer even though brief and as I read it, I thought of Michael Reeves book, “A Good God” in the UK and “Delighting In The Trinity” in the US. Reeves fills out some of these themes in a very accessible way. God’s Trinitarian nature provides the essential background that will inform topics such as sovereignty etc… For those who haven’t yet read that book, it is a must read!!!!
Along with our book:
Evangelical Calvinism: Essays Resourcing the Continuing Reformation of the Church.
π
Steve,
I intend on reading Reeve’s book, and look forward to it. Myk Habets, my co- conspirator in all things Evangelical Calvinism, read Reeve’s book recently; he had high praise for it, but also said he had a few problems with it as well. I will be interested to see what those might be relative to the way that Myk and I think of these things (a la Thomas Torrance).
Steve, have you read Thomas Torrance’s Christian Doctrine of God & The Trinitarian Faith?
No I have not but will put it on my reading list.
Steve,
I think you will be blessed. His “Christian Doctrine of God” is what I would read first. Now you’ve got me antsy to read Reeves’ book :-).