Is Divine Providence Risky? A Dialogue Between John Calvin and John Sanders

Abstract

This study presents John Calvin and John Sanders as an example of the ongoing debate on the nature of divine control and human  freedom. Given the time gap between Calvin and Sanders, the study uses a dialogical hermeneutics methodology. The former upheld a  “no risk” while the latter propagates a “risky” conception of providence. However, the concept of providence as “risk” or “no risk” is not  distinctively biblical. It has not been conceived in such a manner. Despite this, providence can be both risky and risk-free. Seemingly, the notion of divine providence constitutes a paradox, namely: as an omniscient creator, God controls everything, yet humans are free. For  humans to be free, their future contingent actions must not be foreknown, because whatsoever God foreknows happens necessarily.  Since both Scripture and human history show that humans are free, it follows, therefore, that God does not know all future contingent  actions. In that case, divine providence is risky. This explains why God changes and repents of his earlier decisions. However, this study  argues that this paradox may be softened if divine ignorance is understood from a contextual point of view. Further, libertarianism, as  advocated by Sanders, is overemphasized. Lastly, divine mutability and relenting denied by Calvin are part of divine sovereignty, without  which there can be no forgiveness of sin.