I’ve had this post in draft form for several weeks. Since the phrase came up again this morning, I thought it would be a good time to go ahead and finish it and post it…

The other day I was involved in a rousing discussion with friends about the compatibility of God’s sovereignty and human freedom. As anyone who as ever wrestled with this knows, it is a very difficult topic. How can God be in control of all things, ordaining all that comes to pass and not be the ‘author of sin?’ Anyone who has not wrestled with this… well… they are probably not reading a Grace Fellowship blog. So, for the rest of us, in grappling with these issues, we often have to really wrestle with the Scriptures and the ideas.

When thinking about these sorts of things this is an important point that Dan makes… The Scriptures often tell us what the truth of the matter is, but often doesn’t tell us how that truth plays out. The example abound: Jesus is fully God and fully man; the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, there is one God; God is sovereign over every aspect of His creation, yet man is responsible for his actions.

Because God has chosen to reveal the what, but not the how (nor often the why), does this mean that we are wrong to explore the how and speculate about it? Many say yes.

Well, we are not the first to ask such a question. Theologians as far back as Augustine have proposed a model for dealing with such questions, often called faith seeking understanding. The introduction to a book that I picked up on the various views on the relationship between between God and time (talk about a speculative subject!) has a nice section on the concept…

Determining which position is most adequate takes us beyond the particular data of the Scriptures. We will have to think philosophically while remaining within the parameters of Scripture. That is, we must think both Christianly and philosophically about the issue.

Christian philosophers have traditionally sought to think Christianly by thinking in the mode of faith seeking understanding. This mode was introduced as early as Augustine (354-430) and has been articulated throughout the history of the church. What it means to operate in this mode is that Christian philosophers recognize that they know some things by faith in a reliable authority. For example, they know some things simply because they see them in the Scriptures. As God’s written revelation, the Scriptures are reliable indicators of what is true. Philosophers begin with this knowledge (we could call it faith-knowledge) and try to reach another kind of knowledge (understanding-knowledge). Understanding-knowledge is knowledge gained through the application of one’s own reason.

Faith seeking understanding is not an approach for turning mere beliefs into knowledge. Rather, it is a mode for turning one kind of knowledge into another kind. It turns faith-knowledge into understanding-knowledge. We begin with God’s revelation in the Scriptures, recognizing that we know certain things based on it. We then apply our reasoning to these things to see if we can also grasp the same things by our reason. Grasping some issue by our reason often involves a process of unfolding what is only suggested or hinted at in the Scriptures. Thus philosophers may differ from each other in what they claim to have grasped. (God & Time: 4 Views, by Gregory E. Ganssle (Editor), pp. 11-12)

I think this gives us a good framework for the more speculative thinking about the how and why questions.