SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Articles and Sermons : The Perversion of the Sovereignty of God by Britt Williams

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )

Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37397
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

 The Perversion of the Sovereignty of God by Britt Williams

This is being posted not for argument but for thought. There have been many articles posted from the "strong" calvinist point I think it is only right to post other articles from the other side from time to time.


[b]The Perversion of the Sovereignty of God[/b]
[i]by Britt Williams[/i]

The term “sovereign” refers to one who is supreme, above all others, who possesses authority above all. It involves freedom from limitation by any external power or authority. Interestingly, the term “sovereign” is never used in the King James Bible. In fact, no Hebrew word that could be properly translated “sovereign” occurs in the Old Testament. However, the Greek word kyrios is translated into the English word “Lord” and is used throughout the New Testament while the Greek word pantokrator is translated as “Almighty” in several verses in the book of Revelation. Thus, the concept of God as “sovereign” is indeed communicated in the Scriptures. Hence, all genuine Christians agree that God is the Sovereign Ruler over the universe. He is supreme in authority. There are no authorities, whatever they may be, that are not delegated by Him and deferential to His supreme authority. Therefore, God, as Sovereign, is never forced into any action by any external power; He possesses ultimate authority over all things. A.W. Tozer says…

“The sovereignty of God is a fact well established in the Scriptures and declared aloud by the logic of truth. But admittedly it raises certain problems which have not to this time been satisfactorily solved. These are mainly two...”
-A.W. Tozer (The Knowledge Of The Holy, XXII, p. 109)

Mr. Tozer goes on to elaborate on these two theological and philosophical issues raised by the truth of God’s Sovereignty, namely: (1) the existence of evil, and (2) the free will of man.

Calvinistic theology has attempted to address these two issues with less than stellar results. As we discussed in the article, "Is God the Author of Sin?" we learned that the logical end of Calvinistic determinism inescapably makes God the cause of all things, even sin. And, no doubt, though many sincere Calvinist would decry such a conclusion, this is the irrefutable implication of their theology.

In the matter of man’s free will, Calvinists again do violence to the Scriptures and sound reason. At the very heart of Reformed theology is an erroneous interpretation and overstatement of God’s sovereignty. Calvinists view God’s sovereignty in such a way as to deny the possibility of man’s will opposing God’s will. They view God as not only possessing ultimate authority over all things, but likewise, that He is also the ultimate cause of all things. Augustine was one of the first theologians to formulate a doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God. This extra-Biblical concept is at the heart of the Calvinistic system. The Calvinistic concept of God’s sovereignty was not derived from the Scriptures, but from philosophical considerations. Then, accordingly, this presupposition was imposed on the interpretation of Scripture to conform to the basic tenets of the system.

One example of this presupposition playing a part in Calvinistic theology is found in Augustine’s treatment of 1 Timothy 2:4…

“When we hear and read in sacred Scripture that God, ‘willeth that all men should be saved,’ although we know well enough that not all men are saved, we are not on that account to underrate the fully omnipotent will of God. Rather, we must understand the Scripture, ’Who will have all men to be saved,’ as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation he doth not will, but that no one is saved unless He willeth it.”
-Augustine (Confessions and Enchiridion, Vol. VII of The Liberty of Christian Classics)

Here, Augustine obviously forces Scripture to conform to his doctrine. No contextual or linguistic consideration could render this verse as he interpreted it, yet he violently alters the meaning to protect his false presupposition of divine sovereignty.

John Calvin adopted and enlarged the teaching of Augustine, upholding the claim that no other will can resist God’s will. Like his predecessor, Calvin also took great liberties in interpreting God’s Word. Concerning the same passage, 1 Timothy 2:4, he commented…

“By this he assuredly means nothing more than that the way of salvation was not shut against any order of men…since it clearly appears that he is speaking not of individuals, but of order of men, let us have done with a longer discussion.”
-John Calvin, (Institutes of the Christian Religion)

Again, a brazen dishonest handling of the Word of God is necessary to arrive at such conclusions. No doubt, the presupposition of God’s absolute sovereignty plays into this false interpretation of God’s Word. Notice, although both Augustine and Calvin arrived at different conclusions regarding 1 Timothy 2:4, it was their skewed view of God’s sovereignty that fueled their misinterpretations. This erroneous concept of God robs men of libertarian free-will which ultimately makes God the cause of all things, including sin. Unfortunately, this perverted view of God’s sovereignty is at the foundation of the misguided theological system of Calvinism.

As mentioned earlier, God is indeed sovereign, meaning He is over all things and He, ultimately, is in control of all things. However, as a limitless God, He has chosen, in His sovereignty, to limit Himself by granting man free will. Thus, God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice. Moreover, the doctrine of man’s free will is not that man can choose a relationship with God, apart from God (Jn 6:44), but rather, that man has the ability to selectively resist God (Isa 63:10; Acts 7:51; Eph 4:30).

This view is verified not only by the Scriptures but by the early church as well. It is interesting to note that none of the early church fathers held to a view of God’s sovereignty that included divine predestination which denied the free-will of men. For example…

“Lest some suppose…that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain…if , all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritious nor the latter blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions of whatever kind they be. But, it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble.”
-Justin Martyr (The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p.177)

“We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit’s of each man’s actions. Now, if this is not so, but all things happen by fate, then neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it is predetermined that this man will be good, and this other man will be evil, neither is the first one meritorious nor the latter man to be blamed. And again, unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions.”
-Justin Martyr (c. 160, Vol. 1)

“I have proved in what has been said that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault. Rather, each man is what he will appear to be through his own fault.”
-Justin Martyr (c.160, Vol. 1, p. 269)

“The Stoics, not observing this, maintained that all things take place according to the necessity of fate. But since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. and this is the nature of all that is made, to be capable of vice and virtue. For neither would any of them be praiseworthy unless there were power to turn to both (virtue and vice).”
-Justin Martyr (The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p.354)

"If anyone is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice."
-Ignatius (disciple of the Apostle John, late 1st Century/ Early 2nd Century, The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 61)

“Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able to reject it again.”
-Tatian (The Anti-Nicene Fathers, 160, Vol. 2, pp. 69-70)

“This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For
there is no coercion with God, but a good will (toward us) is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves…”
-Irenaeus (c. 180, Against Heresies 37; God’s Strategy In Human History, p. 246)

“Choice depends on the man as being free. But the gift depended on God as the Lord. And He gives to those who are willing, are exceedingly earnest, and who ask. In this manner, their salvation can become their own. For God does not compel.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, Vol. 2, p. 593)

“We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, Vol. 2, p. 217)

“To obey or not is in our own power, provided we do not have the excuse of ignorance.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, Vol. 2, p. 353)

“Each one of us who sins with his own free will, chooses punishment. So the blame lies with him who chooses. God is without blame.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c.195, Vol. 2, p. 226)

“Neither promises nor apprehensions, rewards, no punishments are just if the soul has not the power of choosing and abstaining; if evil is involuntary.”
-Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, Vol. 2, p.319)

“I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience of resistance.”
-Tertullian (c. 207, Vol. 3, pp. 300-301)

“No reward can be justly bestowed, no punishment can be justly inflicted, upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice.”
-Tertullian (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 61, published by Truth in Heart)

“The soul does not incline to either part out of necessity, for then neither vice nor virtue could be ascribed to it; nor would its choice of virtue deserve reward; nor its declination to vice punishment.” Again, “How could God require that of man which he [man] had not power to offer Him?”
-Origen (Doctrine of the Will by Asa Mahan, p. 62, published by Truth in Heart)

“God is good and wise. He does what is best. Therefore, there is no fixed destiny.”
-Methodius (c. 190, Vol. 6, p.343)

“Now those [pagans] who decide that man is not possessed of free will, and affirm that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate…are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause or author of human evils.”
-Methodius (c. 190, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins 16; God’s Strategy In Human History, p. 252)

Admittedly, God’s sovereignty is difficult for the finite mind to grasp. In closing, allow me to share a simple illustration, from A.W. Tozer’s excellent book, “The Knowledge Of The Holy”, that may help us understand the Biblical view of this doctrine.

“An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it. This is at least a faint picture of Sovereignty. On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port. Both freedom and Sovereignty are present here and they do not contradict each other.”
-A.W. Tozer (The Knowledge Of The Holy, XXII, p. 111)

SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2010/1/25 10:13Profile

Joined: 2008/10/21
Posts: 15

 Re: The Perversion of the Sovereignty of God by Britt Williams

Great article! Thanks for posting!

 2010/1/25 10:29Profile

Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC


Good stuff.

Jimmy H

 2010/1/25 11:53Profile

Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927


I still fail to understand why it is the case that those who do not embrace Calvinistic teaching chide those who do embrace Calvinistic theology as being followers of men and not Jesus, yet they themselves usually resort to a long list of quotes from church fathers instead of seriously exegeting the Biblical text.

This article did nothing to seriously offer an exegesis of the pertinent Biblical texts. We must all grapple with the Scripture. Quoting Justin Martyr and Clement isn't serious Bible exposition.

If we want to discuss this issue, why not let some serious exegetical discussion take place between mature members of the board? Everyone likes a monologue, but not everyone wants a dialogue.

Taylor Otwell

 2010/1/25 12:27Profile

Joined: 2005/10/31
Posts: 120
Miami, Fl


Well said Taylor!

 2010/1/25 12:41Profile

Joined: 2007/4/3
Posts: 293



I can't understand the thought that this article that explictly characterizes the doctrines of grace as a perversion of, a violence to and a brazenly dishonest mishandling of Scripture would not cause an argument. The conclusions towards those who hold or present the apparently offending viewpoint are insulting and a very ad hominem attack that the moderators have moderated against for some time, especially on this subject matter. I have missed honest debate on the Scriptural support for the two sides of sovereignty but understood the need to tone down the rhetoric to avoid unedifying controversy. How does this help?

 2010/1/25 13:04Profile

Joined: 2008/10/21
Posts: 15


I believe it was the purpose of this article to show the error of those who claim that calvinistic type theology was prevalent in the early church, not to prove the merit of the free will of man.

Most Calvinists I've talked to embrace calvinism because they claim that God's attribute of sovereignty suffers if man has a choice. I reject Calvinism because if man had no choice, then all of God's other attributes would suffer.

 2010/1/25 13:07Profile


Whyme. I agree. Of all people, the moderators should understand the discord these hot button issues present. To say 'here's a viewpoint but not for argument' on a forum like this, knowing the history of where this eventually leads, is surprisingly thoughtless. Can threads be started where an article is posted but not replied to?? If so then present both sides, as you say has been done, and disable the response capabilities. But to throw it out and say it's not for argument is kind of naive given the forum's history.... especially given prior admonishments from the moderators themselves to not post such things that could lead to such discord (ie... calvanism/armenianism)

On the other hand, if we're comfortable with our theology and our walk with the Lord then we should be able to read such things.... understand the rampant historical quarreling over the subject, then either entertain as food for thought or dismiss it altogether without having to point fingers or plead our case... yet again... with counter-argument. I wonder how many souls each theology has saved.... none... only Christ saves. And all this DESPITE differing viewpoints on this issue. The nerve of such a ONE who would continue to populate heaven in the midst of such a serious and important debate. Perhaps we should ask that He put His work on hold until each side comes to a mutual conclusion? I wonder how long God would have to wait in such a scenario.

 2010/1/25 13:38

 Re: The Perversion of the Sovereignty of God by Britt Williams


I think you probably should have taken your own advice before posting this article:

The site moderators ask you before you post that you consider praying and ask the Lord if you have the right spirit to serve others in the body of Christ before posting and pressing the submit button. Please also look at these scriptures: Matthew 12:36, James 1:26, Colossians 4:6.

 2010/1/25 15:32

Joined: 2005/1/9
Posts: 1090
Germany NRW

 The tightrope walker

We recently had a post featuring a sermon by Keith Daniel entitled the tightrope walker. I find it very balanced defending the scriptures rather then a theologically tainted school. In his exposition he shows a lot of grace towards both camps but does not compromise and inch on the integrity of scripture or tries to find a foul compromise. Believing a truth is good, but a man proving the truth he believes in his life with a remarkable testimony and saved soul is never at the mercy of doctors of religion.

He does not axe Calvin and Spurgeon and Luther, nor does he deify Wesley and Moody.

Matthew 11:19 (English Standard Version)

19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."

 2010/1/25 16:20Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy