Sinking Sand

There is a sense, in most people, that "My doctrine makes sense and those others ... well, it doesn't." We tend to think, "The things I believe have cogent and satisfying answers for the questions asked." And, whether or not we admit it out loud, there is a tendency to think that either those other guys are too stupid to figure this stuff out or blatantly dishonest for believing differently from me.

The truth is that there is hardly a doctrinal position out there that doesn't possess its own set of difficulties. The problem is that we feel the need, far too often, to demonize those with a different set of positions than our own without even recognizing that we might be standing on doctrinal sinking sand ourselves.

Take, for instance, the whole Sovereignty of God debate. I choose this one because it seems so blatantly obvious that there is no "safe" place to stand. By "safe" I mean no place that is without discomfort. One view holds that God is Sovereign -- capital "S". The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it this way: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" (Chapter III:I). There you have it. No equivocation. No question. God is Sovereign. And there is lots of Scripture to back it up. Fine! But it begs the question. If God ordained whatsoever comes to pass, then He ordained evil. If God ordained whatsoever comes to pass, then He ordained sin. Hitler was part of what God ordained. The Holocaust was part of what God ordained. And that people go to Hell is part of what God ordained -- unchangeably. That obviously brings up the question about how He can hold them responsible if He ordained it. And doesn't that make Him the author of sin? Oh, my, yes, this position is full of questions, very tough questions that require careful answers. It is inevitable that they will not be "cogent and satisfying answers" for some people. If they were, there would be no more discussion.

Oh, okay, let's jettison that version of Sovereign. Let's settle down to a more respectable version, a version I'll call "sovereign" with a lower case "s". In this one, God is Sovereign, but He lays aside this Sovereignty to allow for Man's Free Will (I don't use the upper case "F" and "W" there lightly). God does not ordain all that comes to pass. Man ordains his own choices completely without any interference from God. Man is given some sort of his own sovereignty. This is a greater form of "sovereignty" on God's part because He surrenders some of His own sovereignty to Man and still remains sovereign. Neat trick, if you can do it. And much more satisfying. Man caused sin, not God. Man ordains what happens in his life, not God. God is not to blame for all the evils in the world; Man is. Whew! Good thing! God was on the edge of being in trouble there. But all of this begs its own set of questions. If God has allowed Man to do what he wants, in what sense is God actually sovereign? And that's the lightest of the questions. If God allows events to occur that He does not will, in what sense is He sovereign? Worse, in what sense is He God? You see, this view faces the Atheist Challenge. If God is loving and omnipotent, why is there evil? If God is loving and omnipotent and evil is against His will, then it is unavoidable to conclude that things happen that are against His will. If things happen against His will, why? Is it that He doesn't care enough to do something about it (not loving) or is He simply unable to stop it (not omnipotent)? As much as the champions of this position would like to portray it as otherwise, this doctrine of God's sovereignty suffers from its own set of seemingly insurmountable questions and pitfalls. And, again, it is inevitable that they will not be "cogent and satisfying answers" for some people. If they were, there would be no more discussion.

It is not my goal to offer you the truth on this question. It is not my aim to clear up the difficulties. I'm not here to enlighten everyone and solve the mysteries of the ages here. "Behold, humans, I have the cogent and satisfying answers for all time! Listen to me!" No, it's not going to happen here. Truth be told, most of the ideas on which people disagree suffer from the same malady. I see where I'm right. You see where you're right. Neither of us like to see where the difficulties are with our own views. And, in almost every case ... there are difficulties. I want to emphasize, on the other hand, that "difficulties" does not equate to "no truth." There are "cogent and satisfying answers," even if they are not so to everyone. Dismissing the truth doesn't eliminate it any more than turning off the light switch and closing the windows dismisses the sun. I am just asking you to be careful. You are very likely able to see what you consider to be serious holes in your opponents line of thinking. Rest assured, he can see them in yours as well. If we tried out this little concept that I like to call "charity" and offered it to those with whom we disagree -- as if they aren't stupid or liars -- it might make for much more pleasant and interesting conversations. And, who knows? We might end up coming to some level of agreement if we're not too busy defending ourselves against attack instead of simply discussing ideas.