Zenas
Snow Miser
In my understanding, there are two views regarding God's sovereignty that I find remotely permissible and consistent. In either view, God has two wills in action, i.e. his mandative will which has dictated the "rules" and is violated when the "rules" are violated, and his directive will which is never violated because nothing can operate outside of this will, due to the fact that He is totally sovereign.
Allowance View
Under one view, God "allows" things to happen which ultimately cause sin. For instance, God "allowed" Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery, but did not directly cause the situation. However, the action was within His directive will or else it wouldn't have happen. With this in mind, it can be and necessarily is so that God "Willed" for the sin to happen. However, God seems insulated from liability because He was not the direct "Causer" of the action that violates His mandative will. At the same time however, He did "Will" it to happen or else it wouldn't have happened, and so He did "Will" for His mandative will to be violated.
Direct Cause View
Under the other view, God directly causes things to happen which are ultimately sin because they violate His mandative will. In the same example, it can be said that rather than "allowing" Joseph's brothers' wills to be acted out and wrong their brother, God directly caused it. From His perspective, this is not sin for a few reasons: 1. Sin is a defined term only with respect to God's creatures; and 2. The ultimate end of the action brought about God's glory and good for those He showed favor to. Under this system, God is not insulated from liability because He is the direct "Causer" of the action which is a violation of His mandative will.
Problems with Allowance View
God has competing Wills that He is not directing or else this view dissolves and ultimately becomes the Direct Cause View. There is, therefore, something outside of His direct control, but something that He can choose to thwart or not to thwart. In that sense, it is still under His "control", but it is not occurring according to His direction. The competing will is ultimately a variable that God is simply controlling and not directing. This seems to violate God's ultimate sovereignty.
Problems with the Direct Cause View
God is seemingly the Author of Sin because He directs us to violate His mandative will. One can only then conclude that there is no culpability on man's part. God can't be said to sin, because sin is a definition He has defined and that we are held to, not Him. However, it doesn't seem that man is really culpable for His actions because He doesn't have the ability to obey or disobey.
Can anyone correct me or reconcile one of the views? These are the two views re: Sovereignty that I'm aware of, and neither seem logically consistent to me.
Allowance View
Under one view, God "allows" things to happen which ultimately cause sin. For instance, God "allowed" Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery, but did not directly cause the situation. However, the action was within His directive will or else it wouldn't have happen. With this in mind, it can be and necessarily is so that God "Willed" for the sin to happen. However, God seems insulated from liability because He was not the direct "Causer" of the action that violates His mandative will. At the same time however, He did "Will" it to happen or else it wouldn't have happened, and so He did "Will" for His mandative will to be violated.
Direct Cause View
Under the other view, God directly causes things to happen which are ultimately sin because they violate His mandative will. In the same example, it can be said that rather than "allowing" Joseph's brothers' wills to be acted out and wrong their brother, God directly caused it. From His perspective, this is not sin for a few reasons: 1. Sin is a defined term only with respect to God's creatures; and 2. The ultimate end of the action brought about God's glory and good for those He showed favor to. Under this system, God is not insulated from liability because He is the direct "Causer" of the action which is a violation of His mandative will.
Problems with Allowance View
God has competing Wills that He is not directing or else this view dissolves and ultimately becomes the Direct Cause View. There is, therefore, something outside of His direct control, but something that He can choose to thwart or not to thwart. In that sense, it is still under His "control", but it is not occurring according to His direction. The competing will is ultimately a variable that God is simply controlling and not directing. This seems to violate God's ultimate sovereignty.
Problems with the Direct Cause View
God is seemingly the Author of Sin because He directs us to violate His mandative will. One can only then conclude that there is no culpability on man's part. God can't be said to sin, because sin is a definition He has defined and that we are held to, not Him. However, it doesn't seem that man is really culpable for His actions because He doesn't have the ability to obey or disobey.
Can anyone correct me or reconcile one of the views? These are the two views re: Sovereignty that I'm aware of, and neither seem logically consistent to me.
