Morning at 11:30 AM & Evening at 4:00 PM, Galileistraße 65, 70565 Stuttgart
INTRODUCTION
The doctrine of providence as expressly taught in Scripture is one of the most blessed assurances that the Creator of the heavens and the earth is in control of all things. However, as the late R. C. Sproul notes, it “has for many reasons become eclipsed and obscured.”[1] Modern attempt to delimit the providence of God has arisen in the post-Enlightenment era of naturalistic and scientific answers for the operation of the world. Open theist Clark Pinnock, who denies the providence of God in orthodox terms, for example, states clearly, “The new emphasis upon human freedom requires that I think of God as self-limited in relation to the world.”[2] For Pinnock and other open theists God is limited in His relation to the world. Pinnock’s theology symbolizes a paradigmatic shift away from the post-Reformation Puritan era of the doctrine of providence as Scripturally proclaimed and pastorally practical teaching.
What are Reformed theologians to make of individuals such as Pinnock who deny the providence of God in all things? Open theists provide the logical outworking of Arminian theology of the seventeenth century. This essay will argue that uncovering the Puritan doctrine of providence in response to Arminianism provides the framework for handling objectors like open theists by summarizing Reformation creeds and confessions,[3] as well as, surveying the various Puritan theologians and pastors. It will be shown that the doctrine of providence is supported historically, confessionally, and scripturally in response to the non-orthodox view of providence.
CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS ON PROVIDENCE
Reformation Era
Many historians would admit that the Reformation’s focus was two-fold: justification by faith alone and sola Scriptura. The recovery of Scripture as the foundational framework for creeds and confessions revitalized doctrines once lost among Medieval scholars. Therefore, a firmer doctrine of providence was seen through individuals such as Luther and Calvin. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism (1529) on “The First Article: Creation” recognizes that God sustains all aspects of the Christians life from clothing to food which is all done “out of his pure, fatherly, and divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness” on the part of the believer.[4] Luther tied providence into “The Third Petition” of the Lord’s Prayer as well. He writes, “To be sure, the good and gracious will of God is done without our prayer, but we pray in this petition that it may also be done by us.”[5] Luther recognizes that the will of God is concrete and determined yet does not leave out human responsibility in prayer. Similarly, the Augsburg Confession (1530), in its statement on God, recognizes Him as the “one Creator and Preserver of all things visible and invisible.”[6] For Luther and his prodigy Phillip Melanchthon, providence was amongst the foundational aspects of Reformation theology.
The Genevan Confession (1536) does not provide as explicit mention to the providence of God. Yet, it still states that “there is one only God, whom we are both to worship and serve, and in whom we are to put all our confidence and hope: having this assurance, that in him alone is contained all wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and pity.”[7] Assurance is directly linked to the attributes of God which are made manifest in His creation.
The Belgic Confession of Faith (BCF, 1561), Article XIII, provides a firm statement on the providence of God, “that He rules and governs [all created things] according to His holy will, so that nothing happens in this world without His appointment; nevertheless, God neither is the Author of nor can be charged with the sins which are committed.”[8] Not only does the BCF accurately portray what is expressly taught in Scripture but also provides pastoral implications. It states, “This doctrine affords us unspeakable consolation, since we are taught thereby that nothing can befall us by chance, but by the direction of our most gracious and heavenly Father.”[9] The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Question 27 on providence, likewise answers, “The almighty and everywhere present power of God; whereby, as it were by his hand, he upholds and governsheaven, earth, and all creatures; … and all things come, not by chance, but be his fatherly hand.”[10] Once again, according to Question 28, this ought to produce patience in adversity and a firm trust in the sovereignty of God.
Although the Reformation era’s focus was the sufficiency of Scripture, dismantling the papacy, and recovering justification by faith alone, the Reformers still set a framework for the doctrine of providence which would be elaborated upon in the subsequent century. It is important to note that providence was seen as a truth of Scripture and practically prevalent in the lives of Christians.
Post-Reformation Era
Perhaps the greatest contribution to the doctrine of providence in terms of confessional documents is that of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646-47). Undoubtedly, the Westminster Divines were influenced by the preceding confessions of faith from the Reformation Era. Similarly, many of the Puritans draw out the succinct themes of Westminster into their own writings. Westminster defines providence well in its shorter catechism, question 11, “God’s works of providence are, his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.” The Lord governs and preserves all things both creatures and actions. How is this executed? WCF V.1 clearly teaches that God directs, disposes, and governs all creaturely actions. This is done in accordance with “his infallible foreknowledge and the free and immutable counsel of his own will.” Yet, the confession does not leave man out of the equation. WCF V.2 recognizes that although God’s decree, as the first cause, immutably comes to pass, he does also “ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.” Essentially, the Westminster Divines recognize the tension in Scripture where God ordains all things to come to pass yet man makes those decisions.
Does this assume that God is the author of sin? To put it in Pauline terms, “μὴ γένοιτο.” They are careful to note that, regarding to man, “the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin” (WCF V.4).[11] Sproul comments on this difficult portion of the confession writing, “The confession says that God not only permits us to sin, but in His sovereignty He ordains that we sin.”[12] Both decree and human action take place side-by-side, irrespective of one’s interpretation on the matter. Scripturally, this is well documented in the story of Joseph and his brothers. He was sold into slavery by the hands of his brothers yet recognizes that God meant that evil act for good (cf. Gen 50:20). So also, Peter proclaims that Christ was delivered up by the hands of wicked and sinful men according to the Father’s predetermined will (Acts 2:23). The Westminster Confession of Faith does not shy away from the truths found in Scripture. Instead, it recognizes the difficulties but refuses to withhold the clear teaching thereof.
Both Reformation and post-Reformation confessions recognize that God is sovereign in all things, which extends to His acts of providence in governing and preserving all things. This is foundational for understanding the Puritan’s doctrine of providence in response to Arminians, Socinians, and other forms of heresy which sprouted up in objection to the holiness of God.
RECOVERING THE PURITAN SENTIMENT ON PROVIDENCE
Defining Puritan Providence
The Puritans are often looked down upon for their strictness, rigidity, and callous demeanor. Yet many were modeled through various persecutions, including the English Civil War (1642-1651), the Great Plague (1665), and the Great Fire (1666). Puritan John Owen knew struggle and hardship like none other as “several children were born to John and Mary [his first wife], but sadly none survived childhood.”[13] With such drastic world events in their midst, one would wonder if the providence of God could have been at the forefront of their minds. Nevertheless, the doctrine of providence was indeed on their minds.
Perhaps the most helpful definition and understanding of providence comes from Stephen Charnock. In his work Divine Providence, he summarizes thusly,
God upholds the world and causes all the laws that he has impressed on every creature to be affected – not like a person who makes a watch, winds it up, and then leaves it alone or someone who diverts a river into a channel and then leaves it to run the course he has set for it, but God concurs continuously in everything that takes place. For all things not only live but also move in God and by God. His living and omnipotent power runs through every vein of his creation, giving it life and motion and ordering the acts of every part of this great body. All the motions of second causes are ultimately resolved into the providence of God who holds the first link of them in his hands (Hos. 2:21-22).[14]
Charnock encapsulates what the Westminster Divines wrote about regarding providence. Providence is not deistic in that God acts and then removes Himself, nor is it fatalistic in that God robotically manipulates mankind; rather, the Puritans recognize concurrence, governance, and preservation of all things in the providence of God.
Thomas Boston recognizes providence as truth “The extraordinary judgments that have pursued and been inflicted upon wicked men, and the remarkable deliverances that have been granted to the church and people of God in all ages, do loudly proclaim a providence.”[15] He also clearly affirms that providence extends and reaches to all creature and their actions. John Owen likewise defines providence as “the actions of God that outwardly are of him, that have any respect unto his creatures, all his works that are not ad intra, essentially belonging unto the Deity. Now, because God ‘worketh all things according to his decree, or the counsel of his will,’ Eph. 1:11.”[16] Echoing the sentiments of Westminster he succinctly reminds his readers that providence is an act of God “whereby he cherisheth, sustaineth, and governeth the world, or all things by him created, moving them, agreeably to those natures which he endowed them withal in the beginning, unto those ends which he hath proposed.”[17] For Boston and Owen, providence is not merely an impersonal upholding of the world; rather, it is the personal action of God for the good of those whom he loves.
Augustus Toplady perceives an issue of those who would hold a contrary view to the providence of God. In relation to predestination, he states, “providence must regulate every punctilio of its dispensations, by the same preconstructed plan; or it would follow, that God is liable to unforeseen emergencies, and acts either ignorantly, or contrary to his own will.”[18] An important issue of providence is that if God is not the first and primary cause of all things, then certain governing aspects would either be beyond His control or, He could potentially act contrary to His own will. Thomas Manton also echoes the same sentiment, “that which God hath from all eternity ordained, shall and must come to pass at such a time as God hath ordained it should be, and likewise in such a manner, and by such ways and means, as he hath ordained it shall be done.”[19] William Ames also recognizes God’s providence while maintaining the human will. Ames writes, “God does not force His creatures to act, but rules them ‘sweetly’ according to their nature.”[20] One can see the similarities of confessional language incorporated into the Puritan definition of providence.
Theologian and Puritan scholar Joel Beeke notes that providence is not necessarily synonymous with God’s eternal decree, in reference to the Puritan doctrine. In his words, he writes, “Providence is not the same as God’s predestination or eternal decree, but rather is the execution of that decree within the time and space of His creation”[21] (emphasis added). Although the Puritans would affirm the biblical teaching of predestination and election, providence was not equivocated to those concepts. Rather, providence was God’s natural outworking in governing, upholding, and preserving.
Ultimately, providence is for the glory of God. Romans 11:36 clearly proclaims “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whombe glory for ever. Amen.”[22] As Samuel Rutherford writes, “We would here yield patience to divine providence; God hath more care of his own glory, than we can have.”[23] Regardless of the opposition’s perception on providence, the elemental aspects of the Puritan’s doctrine of providence are in accordance with Westminster.
Providence in Practicum: The Puritans Doctrine of Providence in Affliction
The Puritans were not vacuous theologians devoid of pastoral wisdom. They not only lived affliction but preached it well, which was grounded in a biblical-confessional understanding of the doctrine of providence. Thomas Watson writes on the practical aspects of affliction, writing, “Another heart-quieting consideration, is, that afflictions work for good.”[24] He continues to remind congregants that “Afflictions to the godly are medicinal. Out of the most poisonous drugs God extracts our salvation. Afflictions are as needful as ordinances.”[25] Afflictions encourage godly perseverance.
Rooted in the Puritan understanding of afflictions are the words of Paul in Romans 8:28, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according tohis purpose.” Even Matthew Poole, in commenting upon Romans 8:28, reminds believers that all things are worked out “sometimes for temporal good, Gen. 50:20; always for spiritual and eternal good, which is best of all. All occurrences of providence shall serve to bring them nearer to God here, and to heaven hereafter.”[26] Robert Trail also mentions, “Sometimes the Lord sends an extraordinary measure of this comfort unto his people, which is above the usual activity of their faith: but though this be very pleasing and useful, it is not oft of long continuance, nor is it fit it should.”[27] Providence is the means by which God comforts in affliction. Regardless of the temporary and temporal afflictions each and every providential moment of God’s grace encourages perseverance.
Why should comfort rely upon the providence of God? Trail provides another helpful reminder that “All your sinning, all your fainting, all your unbelief, all your murmurings, all your turnings and temptings of the Lord, poor believer, they were all foreseen by God, yet he made the promise, and therefore he will keep it.”[28] Richard Sibbes reminds believers that the Lord’s “justice and providence, serve to defend us in our right, to provide for us in all our wants, and prevent the evils of the ungodly intended against us; his power is ours, to keep us; his providence, to dispose all things for our advantage.”[29] Even amidst trials and tribulations the Lord works all things according to his good pleasure and will.
How is this comfort accomplished? To whom do Christians turn to when faced with such tragedy as the Puritans faced? Comfort in affliction is because of Christ’s providence as one who suffered in every way imaginable yet without sin. John Flavel writes, “We know not how to reconcile promises and providences together, nor yet providences one with another; but certainly, they all work together, Rom. 8:28, as adjuvant causes, or con-causes standing under, and working by the influence of the first cause. He doth not do, and undo; destroy by one providence, what he built by another.”[30] What blessed truth that Christ in his exaltation as a prophet, priest, and king does uphold every aspect of our affliction and cause it for good. Later Flavel concludes, “It is none of our work to steer the course of providence, or direct its motions, but to submit quietly to him that doth.”[31] With Christ as the Good Shepherd of his people, there is nothing they could want except to know that not a sparrow or lily of the field is outside of his providential control (Mat. 6:33ff).
Puritan Providence as a Polemic Against Arminianism et al
The primary purpose of the present paper was to determine how the Puritan idea of providence recovers a sense of orthodox thought as an antidote against Arminianism and open theism. How then would Arminians writ large speak of God’s providence, foreknowledge, governance, and perseverance? The three primary groups the Puritans were writing against were the Papists, Arminians, and Socinians. According to Beeke, the “Papists and Puritans did not disagree much about the doctrine of providence.”[32] Providence was not the primary issue of polemic debate.
The Socinians and Arminians, on the other hand, were at the forefront of Puritan polemical arguments defending the doctrine of God. The Socinians, for example, “challenged the doctrine of providence in their radical denial of the doctrine of God, specifically, God’s omniscient foreknowledge of future actions.”[33] Much of the issue with Socinians was focused upon Trinitarian categories. They also placed human reason in a magisterial role over the Bible. Appropriately notes above, John Owen was a staunch defender of the basic tenants of Christianity and defended against Socinianism in much of his writings.
Arminians, like the Papists, “affirmed sovereign providence over the realm of physical objects and outward actions.”[34] However, at odds with the confessional Reformed standards, the Arminian stance on providence extended into free will. The Dutch Arminian Confession lays forth promising language concerning providence yet interjects when discussing the nature of the will in a refutation against determinism. Beeke summarizes Owen on the Arminian position, writing, “God’s concurrence with secondary causes was a mere general influence equally upon all men which they made use of as they pleased.”[35] For the Arminians, the basic issue of providence boiled down to God’s providence with respect to the will. According to their doctrine, God would never intrude upon man’s will.
One can clearly see the trajectory from the 17th century’s Arminian and Socinian stances with particular individuals who are echoing similar sentiments as their forefathers in false doctrine. Clark Pinnock argues that the reality of God’s providence in sustaining, governing, and preserving all things is an open reality where the world is in a state of dynamic determinism, not static, concrete, or absolute.[36] Perhaps grounded in this understanding is Arminius’ unscriptural view of providence. As Arminius claims, “Man is indeed as “clay in the hands of the potter,” but it does not follow from this that God can justly make of that clay whatever it might be possible for Him to make by an act of His omnipotence.”[37] Essentially, God is unable to form the clay in accordance with his own will. The issue with this, though dealing primarily with soteriology, is an argumentum a fortiori. If the Lord’s cannot justly mold His clay in accordance with His will, especially considering man is the pinnacle of His creation, then those other areas of His control, such as providence, would be of less importance. Individuals like Pinnock and Arminius fail to recognize the providence of God extending to all aspects of creation.
Even more alarming are the comments made by Bruce Ware in passages like Genesis 22:12 where the Lord “changes his mind.” Ware states, “God truly and literally learned what he previously had not known.”[38] If God is in the process of learning, then affliction, persecution, and the difficulties of each individual’s experience are unknown to God. It then follows that God is unable, or unwilling, to help as He would be incapable of knowing how to help. Frame summarizes an important aspect of open theists and the like, writing, “[they] believe that God is weak in the sense that he is unable to do what he would like to do. On this view, he cannot eradicate evil, though he would like to; and he cannot make much progress without our help.”[39] This issue at stake is that of comfort in affliction, reliance upon God, and seeking Christ. Instead, the focus is upon man’s ability to overcome rather than the power of the Lord.
CONCLUSION
The Puritan doctrine of providence is like a cool aloe placed upon a sunburn from the damaging theology of Arminians, Socinians, and modern-day open theists. Any theology that circumvents Scripture in an attempt to place man as the sovereign of his own life must be rejected outright. Confessionally, the church has developed a robust doctrine of providence. Similarly, many Puritan writers, pastors, and theologians were involved in the process of confessional documents, or, they were greatly influenced by them. However, their writing did not evoke cold-hearted dead orthodoxy. Rather, it uplifted the downcast. It sought to recover the sovereignty of God amidst war, famine, and persecution. It was an ad fontes movement to insulate the glory of God around what the Scripture principally teach. The Puritan doctrine of providence from great pastors such as Manton, Owen, Flavel, and Sibbes is like honey-laced tea in the presence of a cold. It is a warm hearth in the darkest of winters. It is truly a God-honoring doctrine which assists Christians to conform to the image of Christ and to seek communion with the Holy Spirit.
[1] R. C. Sproul, Truths We Confess: A Systematic Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Revised Edition. (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2019), 123.
[2] Clark Pinnock, “Between Classical and Process Theism,” in Process Theology, ed. Ronald H. Nash (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, n.d.), 317.
[3] In referencing Reformation creeds and confessions, this is looking at both those confessional documents during the time of the Protestant Reformation and the post-Reformation creeds, such as Westminster.
[4] Mark A. Noll, Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation (Vancouver: Regent College Publications, 2004), 68.
[5] Ibid., 70.
[6] Ibid., 87.
[7] Ibid., 126.
[8] Historic Creeds and Confessions, electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Lexham Press, 1997).
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 37.
[12] Sproul, Truths We Confess, 136.
[13] Tabletalk Magazine, October 2004: John Owen (Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2004), 11.
[14] Stephen Charnock, Divine Providence, ed. Carolyn B. Whiting (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2022), 20.
[15] Thomas Boston, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: An Illustration of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, Part 1, ed. Samuel M‘Millan, vol. 1 (Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1848), 187.
[16] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 10 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 31.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Augustus M. Toplady, The Works of Augustus M. Toplady, vol. 1 (London; Edinburgh: William Baynes and Son; H. S. Baynes, 1825), 370.
[19] Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 2 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), 317.
[20] William Ames, A Sketch of the Christian’s Catechism, trans. Todd M. Rester (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 58.
[21] Joel R Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 163.
[22] All Scripture is translated in the King James Version (KJV) unless noted otherwise.
[23] Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying, and Drawing Sinners to Himself (Glasgow: Samuel and Archibald Gardner; Niven, Napier & Khull, 1803), 194.
[24] Thomas Watson, A Divine Cordial; The Saint’s Spiritual Delight; The Holy Eucharist; and Other Treatises, The Writings of the Doctrinal Puritans and Divines of the Seventeenth Century (The Religious Tract Society, 1846), 24.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Matthew Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 3 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 507.
[27] Robert Traill, The Works of Robert Traill, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1810), 246.
[28] Ibid, 64.
[29] Richard Sibbes, The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 5 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; W. Robertson, 1863), 253.
[30] John Flavel, The Whole Works of the Reverend John Flavel, vol. 1 (London; Edinburgh; Dublin: W. Baynes and Son; Waugh and Innes; M. Keene, 1820), 218.
[31] Ibid, 219.
[32] Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life, 167.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid, 168.
[36] F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2011), 62. The present quote is also found in Clark Pinnock, “God Limits His Knowledge,” Predestination and Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom, eds. David Basinger and Randall Basinger (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986), 144, “God rules over the world in a way that sustains and does not negate its structures. Since freedom has been created, reality is open, not closed. God’s relationship to the world is dynamic, not static. Although this will require us to rethink aspects of conventional or classical theism, it will help us relate sovereignty and freedom more coherently in theory and more satisfactorily in practice.”
[37] James Arminius, The Writings of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols and R Barnall (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1977), 366.
[38] Bruce A Ware, God’s Lesser Glory (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 65.
[39] John M. Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001), 186.
English 
Deutsch